DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP § 2111.01 for more information on the plain meaning of claim language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses,
(D) contingent limitations,
(E) printed matter, or
(F) terms with associated functional language.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (footnote omitted). Claim limitations directed to the content of information are not entitled to patentable weight unless that information has a "functional relationship" to its substrate. As a general proposition, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to non-functional descriptive material absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.05 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). In Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888 (BPAI 2008) (precedential), the Board held that the nature of the information being manipulated by the computer should not be given patentable weight absent evidence that the information is functionally related to the process “by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic” of the steps. See also Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (non-precedential) (holding “wellness-related” data stored in a database and communicated over a network was non-functional descriptive material as claimed because the data “does not functionally change” the system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0184340 (Pularikkal, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0231881 (Chan, et al).
Pularikkal, et al discloses a method for providing network connectivity, the method comprising receiving from a Mobile Network Operator (MNO) an access ID and an IP address at a Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) domain, wherein the access ID and the IP address and the APN correspond to a wireless device (¶ 0043 "the AP or WLC 210 generates and sends a RADIUS accounting massage to the SDN Controller 110. The accounting message provides a mapping among UE 150 Media Access Control (MAC) address, Chargeable User ID (CUID) and Network Access Server (NAS) IP address (i.e., address of the AP/WLC 210).");
forwarding traffic received at the SASE domain from the wireless device via the MNO (¶ 55 "Depending upon the instructions from the SDN controller 110, the AP/WLC 210 can take the following actions for the upstream traffic for a subscriber before forwarding") [ SDN controller implies SASE domain and the AP is interpreted as MNO].
Pularikkal doesn't teach updating an IP address-to-tenant mapping at the SASE domain by applying the access ID and the IP address and the APN to an access ID-to-tenant mapping. Pularikkal, et al teaches forwarding traffic, via MNO , however it doesn't disclose forwarding traffic according to the IP address-to-tenant mapping.
Chan, et al teaches generating an updated IP address-to-tenant mapping at the SASE domain by applying the access ID and the IP address to an access ID-to-tenant mapping for the purpose of preventing a device in a secure site from being attacked by a device the same secure site or by a device in an unsecure site, note ¶42, 47-50, 54, 61, etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
539
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of generating an updated IP address-to-tenant mapping at the SASE domain by applying the access ID and the IP address to an access ID-to-tenant mapping for the purpose of preventing a device in a secure site from being attacked by a device the same secure site or by a device in an unsecure site, as taught by Chan, et al, in the method of providing network connectivity in order for overwriting the first virtual local area network identifier by the second virtual local area network identifier in response to a mapping relationship between the destination address and the second virtual local area network identifier being recorded in the mapping table.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 18, Pularikkal, et al shows wherein the wireless device is authenticated by the MNO before the access ID and the IP address are sent to the SASE domain. (see para 0043 "Upon completion of WLAN authentication based upon Extensible Authentication Protocol Authentication Key Agreement (EAP- AKA), the AP or WLC 210 generates and sends a RADIUS accounting massage to the SDN Controller 110. The accounting message provides a mapping among UE 150 Media Access Control (MAC) address, Chargeable User ID (CUID) and Network Access Server (NAS) IP address (i.e., address of the AP/WLC 210)")[ upon completion of authentication , RADIUS message which includes MAC address and IP address is sent which implies the wireless device is authenticated before the access ID And the IP address is sent].
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 11-13, 17, and 19, note paragraphs 2 and 3, these claims do not add any further functions or change functions and hence, do not further limit the method and are not patentable limitations to the method. Also note figures 1 and 2, ¶4-5, 21-22, 39-40 in Pularikkal, et al.
Regarding claim 14, note figures 1-3 in Pularikkal, et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
345
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, note ¶79 in Pularikkal, et al and rejected for the same reasons stated above.
Claim 16 is same as claim 1, except for the Account Start message, which is shown in ¶30-38, 43-44, and 64-66 in Pularikkal, et al.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, filed May 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0184340 (Pularikkal, et al) and United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0231881 (Chan, et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter can be found in previous Office actions.
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights