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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Saxena failed to parse out a session description protocol associated with the connection request to derive immutable dynamic SDP attributes. Saxena used the session description protocol as clearly illustrated in Figure 2, item 282, SDP Exchange. See also Saxena, column 16, line 12. The immutable dynamic SDP attributes are inherent to the use of SDP, but are also taught in RFC 8830, as referenced by the use of sdp-msid and sdp-fingerprint. The references need not have the exact words “immutable” and “dynamic” to teach the attributes of SDP.
Applicant argues that Saxena failed to generate a target device fingerprint by combining the immutable dynamic SDP attributes and the target device attributes. See further Saxena column 29 lines 56-58 where a fingerprint is generated by calculating a hash of the signed security certificate – an immutable dynamic SDP attribute.
Applicant argues that Saxena failed to disclose an encryption key generated from at least one of the immutable dynamic SDP attributes. See further Saxena column 29 lines 56-58 where a fingerprint is generated by calculating a hash of the signed security certificate – an immutable dynamic SDP attribute.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena et al. (US 11,997,364) in view of Alvestrand (RFC 8830, January 2021, 12 pages).
In regard to claim 1, Saxena disclosed a system for an automated generation of a target device fingerprint, comprising:
a processor of a device fingerprint generation server node configured to host an encryption module and connected to at least one signal daemon node and to a target device; and (Saxena, Figure 3, processor 312, signal daemon node is Figure 2, WebRTC Peer application 216, target device is user device 270, encryption module is fingerprint generator 342.3)
a memory on which are stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
detect a connection request between the target device and the at least one signal daemon; (Saxena Figure 2)
parse out a session description protocol (SDP) associated with the connection request to derive immutable dynamic SDP attributes; (Saxena column 16, lines 10-15)
acquire target device attributes; (Saxena column 16, lines 10-15)
generate a target device fingerprint by combining the immutable dynamic SDP attributes and the target device attributes; (Saxena column 24 line 61 – column 25 line 17, column 29 lines 56-58) and
encrypt the target device fingerprint by an encryption key generated from at least one of the immutable dynamic SDP attributes. (Saxena column 25 lines 11-14, column 29 lines 56-58, encrypting the fingerprint is generating a hash of the security certificate)
Saxena failed to disclose the immutable dynamic session attributes associated with MAC address and L1/L2 addresses comprising sdp -msid and sdp- fingerprint.
However, Alvestrand disclosed:
the immutable dynamic session attributes associated with MAC address and L1/L2 addresses comprising sdp -msid; (Alvestrand 3.1 Handling of Nonsignaled Tracks, pages 6-7, MSID mechanism) and
sdp- fingerprint. (Alvestrand 3.1 Handling of Nonsignaled Tracks, pages 6-7, fingerprint)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the RFC 8830 WebRTC MediaStream Identification in the Session Description Protocol framework into Saxena to fully implement WebRTC over SDP in Saxena, including the use of mediastream msid values and fingerprint values.
In regard to claim 2, Saxena disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one signal daemon is a WebRTC signal daemon. (Saxena WebRTC peer application 216)
In regard to claim 4, Saxena disclosed the target device attributes compris[e] any of:
a device type;
a CPU architecture; and
a device platform.
See Saxena column 25 line 2.
Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena in view of Zemla (US 2024/0388443).
In regard to claim 5, Saxena failed to disclose wherein the machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to authenticate the target device by decrypting the target device fingerprint.
However, Zemla disclosed authenticat[ing] the target device by decrypting the target device fingerprint. Zemla [0052]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decrypt the encrypted fingerprint in Saxena in order to authenticate a target device in Saxena for the purposes of network device security.
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena in view of Yan et al. (US 2024/0056439).
In regard to claim 6, Saxena failed to disclose acquire at least one immutable dynamic SDP attribute and generate a decryption key based on the at least one immutable dynamic SDP attribute.
However, Yan disclosed acquire at least one immutable dynamic SDP attribute and generate a decryption key based on the at least one immutable dynamic SDP attribute. Yan [0102]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a decryption key for a SDP connection that is encrypted as in Saxena’s fingerprint in order to cryptographically access the fingerprint in Saxena.
Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claims 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena in view of White et al. (US 2024/0396708).
In regard to claim 7, Saxena failed to disclose wherein the machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to record the target device fingerprint on a ledger of a blockchain.
However, White disclosed wherein the machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to record the target device fingerprint on a ledger of a blockchain. White [0163]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to record the device fingerprints on a blockchain ledger for the purposes of distributed authentication.
In regard to claim 11, Saxena disclosed retriev[ing] the device fingerprint from the blockchain responsive to at least a consensus between the target device and the signal daemon. (Saxena column 25 lines 14-17)
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena in view of White in view of Bernardi (US 2022/0107994).
In regard to claim 8, Saxena and White failed to disclose execut[ing] a smart contract to generate an encryption key based on the least one of the immutable dynamic SDP attributes.
However, Bernardi disclosed execut[ing] a smart contract to generate an encryption key based on the least one of the immutable dynamic SDP attributes. Bernardi [0248], [0500]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to execute a smart contract when generating the encryption key in Saxena / White in order to automatically implement the encryption key in Saxena.
Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Claims 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena in view of Lau et al. (US 2011/0093542).
In regard to claim 9, Saxena failed to disclose continuously monitor[ing] the session associated with the connection request to detect changes in the immutable dynamic SDP attributes after reconnections.
However, Lau disclosed continuously monitor[ing] the session associated with the connection request to detect changes in the immutable dynamic SDP attributes after reconnections. Lau [0047]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor a session in Saxena for SDP changes to allow for updating the connection status in Saxena.
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena in view of White in view of Nagandla (US 2023/0198767).
In regard to claim 10, Saxena and White failed to disclose detect a collusion of device fingerprints based on retrieved blockchain records.
However, Nagandla disclosed detect a collusion of device fingerprints based on retrieved blockchain records. Nagandla [0018]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect a collusion attack on a blockchain in Saxena / White for the purposes of preventing modification of data in the blockchain.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena in view of Nagandla.
In regard to claim 18, Saxena failed to disclose detecting a collusion of device fingerprints based on retrieved blockchain records.
However, Nagandla disclosed detecting a collusion of device fingerprints based on retrieved blockchain records. Nagandla [0018]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect a collusion attack on a blockchain in Saxena / White for the purposes of preventing modification of data in the blockchain.
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 18.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445