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 status in the amendment received on 12/23/2025:
Claims 2, 7, 10 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitation “in response to receiving an input associated with the one or more controls, displaying, by a processing device, an indication of network traffic between the first group and the second group, the network traffic being associated with one or more segmentation rules”, as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 9 and 15.
However, the examiner respectfully traverses.
For example, in page 18 of McNamara, the matrix that shows first group “Admin” , a second group “Admin”/“BYOD” and indication of network traffic between the first and second group at least “Deny IP”/ “Permit IP”. The examiner would like to note that the claim broadly states “an indication” of network traffic, not the actual network traffic is displayed. So, giving the limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation in the light of specification, the information displayed such as at least “Deny IP”/ “Permit IP” teaches “an indication” of network traffic between the groups.
Therefore, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10 and 16 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.
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, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugard IV et al. (Pub. No.: US 20130275574 A1) (“Hugard” hereinafter) in view of Katherine McNamara (TrustSec Overview and ISE Configuration, August 9, 2016, http://www.network-node.com/blog/2016/8/8/ise-21-trustsec-configuration, retrieved on 2/27/2021) (“McNamara” hereinafter, McNamara was cited in the parent application No. 17567100).
As to claim 1, Hugard teaches a method comprising: tagging a plurality of entities communicatively coupled to a network (paragraph [0032]);
grouping the plurality of entities communicatively coupled to the network into a plurality of groups based at least on one or more tags that are associated with each of the plurality of entities (paragraph [0033]);
configuring an enforcement point with the one or more segmentation rules, the enforcement point being associated with the first group and the second group (paragraph [0036]).
Hugard does not explicitly teach utilizing displayed controls for view and manipulating groups and associated policies.
However, in the same field of endeavor (network security) McNamara teaches displaying one or more controls for selecting a first group and a second group from the plurality of groups (pg. 11, i.e. selecting security groups);
in response to receiving an input associated with the one or more controls, displaying, by a processing device, an indication of network traffic between the first group and the second group, the network traffic being associated with one or more segmentation rules (pg. 11 and 18, for example displaying permit or deny IP); and
in response to receiving a second input through the one or more controls, configuring an enforcement point with the one or more segmentation rules, the enforcement point being associated with the first group and the second group (pg. 17 and pg. 22, i.e. deploy).
Based on Hugard in view of McNamara, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate utilizing displayed controls for view and manipulating groups and associated policies (taught by McNamara) with tagging and grouping network entities (taught by Hugard) in order to provide the user with a graphical user interface to facilitate configuration of network resources and associated policies which will make the system more user friendly and easy to use.
As to claim 3, McNamara further teaches wherein the one or more controls comprises a first control configured to apply the one or more segmentation rules to an entire group, and a second control to apply the one or more segmentation rules to a single entity of the plurality of entities (pg. 16-17). The limitations of claim 3 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 1 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
As to claim 4, McNamara further teaches in response to receiving, through the one or more controls, a selection of a service that is configured on an entity of the first group or the second group, displaying a subset of the network traffic that is associated with the service (pg. 18). The limitations of claim 4 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 1 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
As to claim 5, Hugard teaches wherein tagging the plurality of entities includes generating one or more tags for each of the plurality of entities wherein at least one of the one or more tags are determined based on a characteristic of an entity that is independent of internet protocol (IP) address (paragraph [0032]).
As to claim 6, Hugard teaches wherein grouping the plurality of entities is performed based on commonality of the one or more tags among the plurality of entities (paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 7, McNamara further teaches wherein displaying the indication of the network traffic comprises displaying an indication comprising at least one of a first visual indication associated in response to allowed communication between a first entity of the first group and a second entity of the second group, a second visual indication in response to partial allowed communication between the first entity of the first group and the second entity of the second group, and a third visual indication in response to blocked communication between the first entity of the first group and the second entity of the second group (pg. 18). The limitations of claim 7 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 1 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
As to claim 8, McNamara further teaches in response to receiving a third input associated with the one or more controls, displaying a subset of the network traffic that is authorized, and in response to receiving a fourth input associated with the one or more controls, displaying a second subset of the network traffic that is unauthorized (pg. 18). The limitations of claim 7 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 1 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
As to claim 9, Hugard further teaches a system comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory (paragraph [0044]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claims 11-14, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar to claims 3-6, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
As to claim 15, Hugard further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions encoded thereon (paragraph [0044]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claims 17-20, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar to claims 3-6, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 1/10/2026
Prosecution Insights