DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are presented for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It appears claim 1 would reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill as a system of software per se, failing to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicants’ disclosure contains no explicit and deliberate definition for the terms “virtual private cloud”, “virtual private cloud proxy server”, and in the context of the disclosure and claims in question, one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret these terms as software applications. As such, the system of software alone is not a machine, it is clearly not a process, manufacture nor composition of matter [ Please see MPEP 2106 ].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the proxy server" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "The system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0195182 ], in view of Nykanen et al. [ US Patent Application No 2007/0297430 ].
As per claim 1, Mathur discloses the invention as claimed including a method for setting up a virtual private cloud [ Abstract ], comprising:
providing redundant or nested security layers including a local firewall within a provider firewall [ i.e. first appliance 200 and second appliance 200’, and appliance includes firewall ] [ 200, 200’, Figure 1B; and paragraphs 0050, 0117, and 0128 ];
providing a virtual private cloud proxy server with access to a data network through the local firewall and provider firewall [ Figure 2B; and paragraphs 0118, 0119, and 0121 ];
configuring the virtual private cloud proxy server in coordination with the local firewall and the provider firewall to enable transparent proxying wherein TCP/UDP traffic is redirected to a local port [ i.e. communicate on a specific IP address and port ] [ paragraphs 0118, 0123, and 0125 ], selectively allow access to all system within the provider firewall [ i.e. accesses processes or uses data file of corporate data center ] [ paragraphs 0048, 0057, and 0063 ]; and
providing access to a list of rules, whereby internet packet traffic is filtered and then directed to and from clients within the local firewall based on a list of rules [ i.e. rules/policy engine comprises one or more application firewall or security control policies for providing protections ] [ paragraphs 0128, 0129, and 0220 ].
Mathur does not specifically disclose
support interchangeable use IPV4 and IPV6.
Nykanen discloses
support interchangeable use IPV4 and IPV6 [ i.e. provide reachability of IPv4 and IPv6 ] [ paragraphs 0010, 0060, and 0146 ].
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 Mathur and Nykanen because the teaching Nykanen would enable to provide seamless peer-to-peer connectivity between nodes of different communication network environments [ Nykanen, paragraph 0002 ].
As per claim 2, Mathur discloses wherein the list of rules includes at least one of: selective use of IPV4 or IPV6; protocol selection from at least one of TCP, UDP, ICMP, ICMPv6, UDP-Lite, ESP, AH, SCTP, MH; receiving IP with or without a mask; sending IP with or without a mask; selection of destination port, source port or port range; routing IP traffic to a next step or hop directly based on a rule from the list of rules; routing IP traffic to a next step or hop directly based on a whitelist; dropping IP traffic based on a blacklist [ paragraph 0128, and 0276 ].
As per claim 3, Mathur discloses the invention as claimed including a virtual private cloud, comprising:
a virtual private cloud proxy server with access to a data network [ Figure 2B; and paragraphs 0118, 0119, and 0121 ];
redundant or nested security layers through which the virtual private cloud proxy server accesses the data network, the redundant or nested security layers including a local firewall within a provider firewall [ i.e. first appliance 200 and second appliance 200’, and appliance includes firewall ] [ 200, 200’, Figure 1B; and paragraphs 0050, 0117, and 0128 ],
wherein the proxy server in coordination with at least one of the local firewall and provider firewall enables transparent proxying, wherein TCP/UDP traffic is redirected to a local port [ i.e. communicate on a specific IP address and port ] [ paragraphs 0118, 0123, and 0125 ];
wherein the proxy server and local firewall are configured to selectively allow access to all systems within the provider firewall [ i.e. accesses processes or uses data file of corporate data center ] [ paragraphs 0048, 0057, and 0063 ]; and
wherein internet packet traffic is filtered and then directed to and from clients within the local firewall based on a list of rules [ i.e. rules/policy engine comprises one or more application firewall or security control policies for providing protections ] [ paragraphs 0128, 0129, and 0220 ].
Mathur does not specifically disclose
wherein IPV4 and IPV6 is supported and usable interchangeably during transparent proxying.
Nykanen discloses
wherein IPV4 and IPV6 is supported and usable interchangeably during transparent proxying [ i.e. provide reachability of IPv4 and IPv6 ] [ paragraphs 0010, 0060, and 0146 ].
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 Mathur and Nykanen because the teaching Nykanen would enable to provide seamless peer-to-peer connectivity between nodes of different communication network environments [ Nykanen, paragraph 0002 ].
As per claim 4, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Devarajan et al. [ US Patent Application No 2020/0177548 ] discloses multi-tenant cloud-based firewall system and method and enterprise includes internal firewall protecting an internal network and another firewall may protect an enterprise firewall subnet
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