DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The independent claims call for “communicate a first request to a gateway server to determine whether the information about the user device is valid; receiving a first response message from the gateway server, wherein the first request message indicates that the information about the user device is valid”, the limitations appear to be contradicted with each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal [ US Patent Application No 2014/0245385 ] in view of Kaidi [ US Patent Application No 2022/0247750 ].
As per claim 1, Singhal discloses the invention as claimed including a system for validating origin information of a data item [ i.e. packet source validation ] [ Abstract ], comprising:
a memory configured to store user information associated with a sender of a data item [ i.e. key server database includes caller ] [ 30, Figure 1B; and paragraph 0048 ]; and a processor, operably coupled to the memory and configured to:
access a data packet that indicates a request to transfer the data item [ i.e. first major router receives packet 24A performs a packet source validation function for each packet ] [ 24A, Figure 1B; and paragraphs 0053, and 0066 ], , wherein:
the data packet is appended with at least a first header and a second header; the first header comprises information about the sender of the data packet; and the second header comprises a plurality of parameters comprising information about a user device from which the data packet has originated [ i.e. embeds the string in the header of each outgoing data packet ] [ 24A, Figure 1B; 82A, Figure 2B, Figure 4A; and paragraphs 0051, 0065, 0066, 0140, and 0141 ];
receive the user information that is previously provided by the sender of the data item [ Figure 3B; and paragraphs 0053, and 0133 ];
compare the user information with the information about the sender of the data packet; determine that the user information corresponds to the information about the sender of the data packet [ i.e. the packet validation function 46A is performed first with the help of major router database 54 ] [ 46A, Figure 1B; and paragraphs 0053, 0068, and 0105-0116 ];
communicate a first request message to a server to determine whether the information about the user device is valid; receive a first response message from the server, wherein the first request message indicates that the information about the user device is valid [ i.e. key server receives a validation query from the major router and verify the secure data string with the key record in the key server database ] [ 46B, Figure 1B; and paragraphs 0054, 0069, and 0117-0123 ]; and
in response to receiving the first response message and determining that the user information corresponds to the information about the sender of the data packet, communicate a second request message to an operation server [ i.e. routed to other major routers or destination mail server ] [ 24B, Figure 1B; and paragraph 0053, 0057, and 0070 ], wherein:
the second request message comprises the data packet [ i.e. data packet is routed further ] [ Figure 4B; and paragraph 0135 ]; and
the second request message further comprises instructions that cause the data packet to be transferred [ i.e. the subsequent routers 44B can check the valid router id code to decide not to repeat the packet validation performed by the first router, the subsequent router if routing to a sub-network ] [ paragraphs 0057, 0115, and 0135 ].
Singhal does not specifically disclose a gateway server; and
a receipt of the first response message is in response to:
a comparison between each parameter from the plurality of parameters with a counterpart expected parameter; and
a determination that more than a threshold number of parameters from the plurality of parameters correspond to counterpart expected parameters.
Kaidi discloses a gateway server [ ie. server that is operable to receive requests from remote computer to access one or more electronic resources ] [ 110, Figure 1; and paragraph 0023 ]; and
a receipt of the first response message is in response to:
a comparison between each parameter from the plurality of parameters with a counterpart expected parameter [ i.e. various sources of supplemental information may be analyzed including records of user account logins and active sessions, records of user account profiles including information about IP addresses, device fingerprints, and other identity indicators ] [ Table 1; and paragraphs 0035-0037; and 0052 ]; and
a determination that more than a threshold number of parameters from the plurality of parameters correspond to counterpart expected parameters [ i.e. plurality of log entries is analyzed using a plurality of network analyzed rules that are useable to group log entries according to traffic and/or identity indicators ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0026-0028, and 0035 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Singhal and Kaidi because the teaching of Kaidi would enable to identify and to block related accesses that are associated with threats, and facilitate alerts about abuse traffic and techniques to ameliorate abusive traffic [ Kaidi, paragraph 0021 ].
As per claim 2, Singhal discloses wherein a determination that the information about the user device is valid is in response to:
comparing the information about the user device with previously provided information about the user device; and determining that the information about the user device corresponds to the previously provided information about the user device [ i.e. at step D2, the packet validation function 46B in the specific key server receives the query and validates the query with the key record data present in the key server database ] [ 46B, Figure 1B; and paragraphs 0054, and 0117-0123 ].
As per claim 3, Singhal discloses wherein the previously provided information about the user device comprises at least one of an internet protocol (IP) address, an identifier, or an identification of an operating system (OS) associated with the user device [ 30, Figure 1B; and paragraph 0048 ].
As per claim 4, Singhal in view of Kaidi discloses the system of claim 1, furthermore, Singhal discloses the operation server communicatively coupled to first processor and the server [ 44B, Figure 1B; and paragraphs 0053 ], the operation server comprising a second processor configured to: receive the second request message; and execute the instructions included in the second request message [ i.e. the subsequent routers 44B can check the valid router id code to decide not to repeat the packet validation performed by the first router, the subsequent router if routing to a sub-network ] [ paragraphs 0057, 0115, and 0135 ].
As per claim 5, Singhal discloses wherein the information about the sender of the data packet included in the first header comprises at least one of an identifier associated with the sender or a timestamp of originating the request [ 30, Figure 1B; and paragraph 0048 ].
As per claim 6, Singhal discloses wherein the information about the user device included in the second header comprises at least one of an internet protocol (IP) address, an identifier, or an identification of an operating system (OS) associated with the user device [ 24B, Figure 1B, Figure 4A; and paragraphs 0055, and 0135 ].
As per claim 7, Kaidi discloses wherein: the first request message comprises an application programming interface (API) request; and the first response message comprises an API response [ i.e. API calls ] [ paragraphs 0040, and 0046 ].
As per claims 8-14, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1-7.
As per claims 15-20, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1-3, and 5-7, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adhikari et al. [ US Patent Application No 2007/0237144 ] discloses a method of transporting authentication information in a media stream packet includes embedding the authentication information in one of a heading and a payload of the media stream packet
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights