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's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered, and are partially persuasive. Regarding the Double Patenting rejections, said grounds of rejection are maintained as the pending claims remains obvious in view of the patented claims. While the pending claims now positively recite where the segmenting is “based on the one or more related end points having the one or more attributes in common”, equivalent language is recited in the patented parent via the recitation “identifying one or more related end points having the classification in common with the first end point; segmenting the first end point with the identified one or more related end points”. The amended, pending language is fully anticipated by the patented parent. The rejections made under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn responsive to the amended claim language. The rejections made under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been overcome based on the amended claim language directed to the endpoint segmenting functionality. However, after further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Jain (US-20170339188-A1). Jain suggests segmenting endpoint groups based on common attributes such as name, address, etc., as discussed in [22-24,49-51,67,59], and [72].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 24, 26, 28, 21, 22, 25, 28, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, and of U.S. Patent No. US-12088426-B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each element of one of the above noted pending claims is anticipated by an element from a corresponding patented claim.
Regarding pending claim 21, said claim is anticipated by patented claim 1 as illustrated below:
Pending claim 21
A network component, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more processors and comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network component to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more attributes associated with an end point; identifying one or more related end points having the one or more attributes in common with the end point;
segmenting, based on the one or more related end points having the one or more attributes in common with the end point, the end point and the one or more related end points into a segmented group;
determining, using telemetry data collected from the segmented group,
a segment-specific policy; and
applying the segment-specific policy to the segmented group.
Patented claim 1
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more processors and comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause . . . the system to perform operations comprising:
identifying a first end point . . .;
determining a classification for the identified first end point based on one or more attributes of the first end point;
identifying one or more related end points having the classification in common with the first end point;
segmenting the first end point with the identified one or more related end points;
collecting telemetry data from the segmented first end point and the one or more related end points;
determining . . .
a segment-specific policy update to assist the segmented first end point and the one or more related end points in automatic troubleshooting, and
applying the policy update to the segmented first end point and the one or more related end points.
Pending claim 24
The network component of Claim 21, the operations further comprising: creating a secure network overlay for the segmented group.
Patented claim 4
The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: creating a secure network overlay for the first end point and the identified one or more related end points.
Pending claim 26
The network component of Claim 21, the operations further comprising: integrating the segmented group in a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN).
Patented claim 6
The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: integrating the first end point and the identified one or more related end points in a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN).
Regarding pending claim 28, the limitations of said claim are anticipated by patented claim 7 in the same manner pending claim 21 is anticipated by patented claim 1.
Regarding pending claim 31, the limitations of said claim are anticipated by patented claim 11 in the same manner pending claim 24 is anticipated by patented claim 4.
Regarding pending claim 33, the limitations of said claim are anticipated by patented claim 12 in the same manner pending claim 26 is anticipated by patented claim 6.
Regarding pending claim 35, the limitations of said claim are anticipated by patented claim 13 in the same manner pending claim 21 is anticipated by patented claim 1.
Regarding pending claim 38, the limitations of said claim are anticipated by patented claim 16 in the same manner pending claim 24 is anticipated by patented claim 4.
Regarding pending claim 40, the limitations of said claim are anticipated by patented claim 18 in the same manner pending claim 26 is anticipated by patented claim 6.
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 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 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 21 – 23, 25, 28 – 30, 32, 35 – 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (US-20190319950-A1) in view of Jain (US-20170339188-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Bowling shows a network component, comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 1 item 303); and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more processors (Fig. 1 items 305, 307, 315) and comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network component to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more attributes associated with an end point ([31] discussing a protocol, [39] discussing a characteristic, [43,45] discussing a function; see the process shown in Fig. 5 step 501, Fig. 6 item 601, and Fig. 7 steps 905 and 906); identifying one or more related end points having the one or more attributes in common with the end point (Figs. 9, 10 [49,54] showing determining other EIoT devices with the same function); segmenting the end point and the one or more related end points into a segmented group ([20-21,42,55, 59]); determining, using telemetry data collected from the segmented group ([78-79,169-171]), a segment-specific policy ([98] discussing, e.g., a sensor based policy control the quantity of data gathered);
applying the segment-specific policy to the segmented group ([49,55] discussing enforcing segment isolation, [162] discussing application of a specific security policy, [163] discussing flow regulation).
Bowling does not show where the segmenting is based on one or more related end points having one or more attributes in common with the end point. Jain shows where the segmenting is based on one or more related end points having one or more attributes in common with the end point ([22-24,49-51,67,69,72] discussing forming end point groups based on common attributes such as name, address, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device grouping and management techniques of Bowling with the grouping techniques of Jain in order to more efficiently apply polices when managing devices (as one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that similar devices such as those with similar attributes are frequently managed in a similar fashion). Regarding claim 22, Bowling in view of Jain further shows wherein the one or more attributes associated with the end point comprise one or more from the following set of attributes: information relating to an asset identifier; a device type (Jain, [46]); a media access control (MAC) address (Jain, [21-22,24]); an internet protocol (IP) address (Jain, [21-22,24]); a product identifier; a protocol (Bowling, [31,53]); a vendor identifier; and a type of data transmitted (Jain, [36] and Bowling, [51,55,78]).
Regarding claim 23, Bowling in view of Jain further shows the operations further comprising: classifying the end point based on the one or more attributes associated with the end point (e.g., [55] discussing an “authorized and secured smart watch” classified as associated with “sensitive data” use).
Regarding claim 25, Bowling in view of Jain further shows the operations further comprising: identifying the end point based on its associated internet-of-things (IoT) protocol ([164,175-177]).
Regarding claims 28 and 35, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 21.
Regarding claims 29 and 36, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 22.
Regarding claims 30 and 37, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 23.
Regarding claims 32 and 39, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 25.
Claims 24, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling in view of Jain as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Cidon (US-20190104111-A1).
Regarding claim 24, Bowling in view of Jain show creating the segmented group ([20-21,42,55,59]). Bowling in view of Jain show does not show creation and use of a secure network overlay. Cidon shows creation and use of a secure network overlay ([47] and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network management techniques of Bowling with the security functionality of Cidon in order to further protect the resultant network and provide more control over the segmented devices.
Regarding claims 31 and 38, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 24.
Claims 26, 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling in view of Jain as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Bull (US-20190268973-A1).
Regarding claim 26, Bowling in view of Jain shows claim 21. Bowling in view of Jain does not show: integrating the segmented group in a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN). Bull shows integrating the segmented group in a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) ([33,38]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network management techniques of Bowling with SD-WAN usage of Bull in order to simplify policy enforcement across the multiple managed devices and device types.
Regarding claims 33 and 40, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 26.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling in view of Jain as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Trivellato (US-20200404502-A1).
Regarding claim 24, Bowling in view of Jain shows the network component is on enterprise network ([16-17,29]); and the end point and the one or more related end points are IoT end points ([16-17,27]). Bowling in view of Jain does not show use of a switch. Trivellato shows use of a switch ([35,37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network management techniques of Bowling with the switch use of Trivellato in order to further leverage use of a common existing piece of network infrastructure, simplifying the resultant network deployment.
Regarding claim 34, the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 27.
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 JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights