DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application, i.e. BLUETOOTH, etc. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Patent No. 12107855. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
“A method for network security, the method comprising: determining, whether a device connected to a network port of a switch of a network is a native device or a non-native device for the network; in response to determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network, performing native device authentication or non-native device authentication; and prior to native device authentication or non-native device authentication being completed, directing data traffic received from the device to a default page” (claim 1, instant application) is analogous to and broader than
“A method for network security, the method comprising: determining whether a device connected to a network port of a switch of a network is a native device or a non-native device for the network, wherein the device is the native device of the network if the device and the switch are designed or manufactured by same manufacturer, and wherein the device is the non-native device of the network if the device and the switch are designed or manufactured by different manufacturers; and in response to determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network, performing native device authentication or non-native device authentication, wherein in response to determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network, performing native device authentication or non-native device authentication comprises: performing native device authentication when the device is determined as the native device, wherein performing native device authentication when the device is determined as the native device comprises exchanging a plurality of security certificates between the switch and the device; and performing non-native device authentication when the device is determined as the non-native device, wherein performing non-native device authentication when the device is determined as the non-native device comprises exchanging a plurality of port-based Network Access Control (PNAC) messages between the switch and the device” (claim 1, patent 12107855).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims of the instant application have not in fact been patented.
The claims of the conflicting patents and/or applications contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species with that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is “anticipated” by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court’s predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic claim. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
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 1-4, 6, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderveen (20210367839), and further in view of Basu (20220385649).
Regarding claim 1, Vanderveen teaches A method for network security, the method comprising (abstract, par.283-288):
determining, whether a device connected to a network port of a switch of a network is a native device or a non-native device for the network (par.58-63, 67-72, fig.8, registered or nonregistered devices, based on registry);
in response to determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network, performing native device authentication or non-native device authentication (par.50-52, 81-89, authenticate device based on certificate, lldp, dhcp).
Vanderveen does not expressly disclose, however, Basu teaches prior to native device authentication or non-native device authentication being completed, directing data traffic received from the device to a default page (par.56-61).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen to use redirection as taught by Basu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to support additional authentication schemes based on predetermined outcomes (Basu, par.1-5, 17-27, 50-60).
Regarding claim 15, Vanderveen teaches A method for network security, the method comprising: at a switch of a network, (abstract, par.283-288):
determining whether a device connected to a network port of the switch is a native device or a non-native device for the network (par.58-63, 67-72, fig.8, registered or nonregistered devices, based on registry);
in response to determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network, performing native device authentication or non-native device authentication using the switch (par.50-52, 81-89, authenticate device based on certificate, lldp, dhcp).
Vanderveen does not expressly disclose, however, Basu teaches
prior to native device authentication or non-native device authentication being completed, directing data traffic received from the device to a default page (par.56-61).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen to use redirection as taught by Basu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to support additional authentication schemes based on predetermined outcomes (Basu, par.1-5, 17-27, 50-60).
Regarding claim 2, Vanderveen/ Basu teaches wherein determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network comprises determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network based on Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) information related to the device (Vanderveen, par.49-53).
Regarding claim 3, Vanderveen/ Basu teaches wherein determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network comprises determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network based on Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) information related to the device (Vanderveen, par.49-53).
Regarding claim 4, Vanderveen/ Basu teaches when a determination is made that the device is the non-native device, limiting data traffic through the network port of the switch from the device (Vanderveen, par.48-53, 110-115, Basu, 37-41).
Regarding claim 6, Vanderveen/ Basu teaches when a determination is made that the device is the non-native device, directing data traffic from the device to a second default page (Vanderveen, par.70-74, fig. 4, fig.2, Basu, 37-41, 56-61).
Regarding claim 14, Vanderveen/ Basu teaches wherein the device comprises a wireless access point (AP) (Vanderveen, 40-43, fig.1).
Regarding claim 16, Vanderveen/ Basu teaches wherein determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network using the switch comprises determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network based on Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) information or Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) information related to the device that is received at the switch (Vanderveen, 49-51).
Regarding claim 17, Vanderveen/ Basu teaches when a determination is made that the device is the non-native device, directing data traffic from the device to a second default page (Vanderveen, par.70-74, fig. 4, fig.2, Basu, 37-41, 56-61).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderveen (20210367839), and further in view of Basu (20220385649) and Rawat (20060193300).
Regarding claim 20, Vanderveen teaches A method for network security, the method comprising: at an access switch (AS) of a network, (abstract, par.283-288)
determining whether a device connected to a network port of the AS is a native device or a non-native device for the network based on Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) information or Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) information related to the device (par.50-52, 58-63, 67-72, fig.8, registered or nonregistered devices, based on registry)
in response to determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network, performing native device authentication by exchanging a plurality of security certificates between the AS and the device or non-native device authentication by exchanging a plurality of port-based Network Access Control (PNAC) messages between the AS and the device (par.50-52, 81-89, fig.5, authenticate device based on certificate, lldp, dhcp).
Vanderveen does not expressly disclose, however, Basu teaches
prior to native device authentication or non-native device authentication being completed, directing data traffic received from the device to a default page (par.56-61) and
Rawat teaches wherein the AS is connected to at least one distribution switch (DS) of the network (par.64-69, fig.5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen to use redirection as taught by Basu and to use the network access and distribution switches as taught by Rawat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to support additional authentication schemes based on predetermined outcomes (Basu, par.1-5, 17-27, 50-60) and facilitate connections between devices (Rawat, par.3-12, 56-69).
Claims 5, 7-8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderveen/Basu, and further in view of Behringer (9043884).
Regarding claim 5, Vanderveen/ Basu teaches when a determination is made that the device is the non-native device, only allowing a message containing Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP), Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), or Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) information, a Transport Layer Security (TLS), and an IEEE 802.1X port-based Network Access Control (PNAC) message from the device through the network port of the switch (Vanderveen, 58-65, 80-85), but does not expressly disclose, however,
Behringer teaches message within one hop (col.5, 1-30, col.16, 40-50).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen/Basu to use hop discovery as taught by Behringer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to facilitate discovery of nodes and node reachability (Behringer, col.3, 35-67).
Regarding claim 7, Vanderveen/ Basu does not expressly disclose, however, Behringer teaches
wherein in response to determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network, performing native device authentication or non-native device authentication comprises: performing native device authentication when the device is determined as the native device; and performing non-native device authentication when the device is determined as the non-native device (col.10, lines 1-40).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen/Basu to use different authentication methods as taught by Behringer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide for reliable security depending on devices trust (Behringer, cols.10-11).
Regarding claim 8, Vanderveen/Basu/ Behringer teaches wherein performing native device authentication when the device is determined as the native device comprises exchanging a plurality of security certificates between the switch and the device (Vanderveen, par.85-90, fig.5).
Regarding claim 18, Vanderveen/ Basu does not expressly disclose, however, Behringer teaches
wherein in response to determining whether the device is the native device or the non-native device for the network, performing native device authentication or non-native device authentication using the switch comprises: performing native device authentication using the switch when the device is determined as the native device; and performing non-native device authentication using the switch when the device is determined as the non-native device (col.10, lines 1-40).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen/Basu to use different authentication methods as taught by Behringer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide for reliable security depending on devices trust (Behringer, cols.10-11).
Claims 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderveen/Basu/ Behringer, and further in view of Pallas (20180013798).
Regarding claim 9, Vanderveen/ Basu/ Behringer does not expressly disclose, however, Pallas teaches
allowing the device to access a plurality of network resources in the network when native device authentication is successfully performed (par.15-17, 60-64).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen/Basu/Behringer to permit access as taught by Pallas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to reliable support secure access to resources (Pallas, par.56-65).
Regarding claim 10, Vanderveen/ Basu/ Behringer does not expressly disclose, however, Pallas teaches
wherein performing non-native device authentication when the device is determined as the non-native device comprises exchanging a plurality of port-based Network Access Control (PNAC) messages between the switch and the device (par.15-17, 31-32, 60-64, 71-73).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen/Basu/Behringer to permit access as taught by Pallas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to reliable support secure access to resources (Pallas, par.56-65).
Regarding claim 19, Vanderveen/ Basu / Behringer teaches exchanging security certificates (Vanderveen, par.58-65, 80-85) but does not expressly disclose, however, Pallas teaches
wherein performing native device authentication when the device is determined as the native device using the switch comprises exchanging a plurality of security certificates between the switch and the device, and wherein performing non-native device authentication when the device is determined as the non-native device using the switch comprises exchanging a plurality of port-based Network Access Control (PNAC) messages between the switch and the device (par.15-17, 31-32, 60-64, 71-73).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen/Basu/Behringer to permit access as taught by Pallas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to reliable support secure access to resources (Pallas, par.56-65).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderveen/Basu, and further in view of Pallas.
Regarding claim 11, Vanderveen/ Basu does not expressly disclose, however, Pallas teaches
allowing the device to access only a subset of a plurality of network resources in the network when non-native device authentication is successfully performed (par.15-17, 60-64).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen/Basu to permit access as taught by Pallas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to reliable support secure access to resources (Pallas, par.56-65).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderveen/Basu, and further in view of Rawat.
Regarding claim 12, Vanderveen/ Basu does not expressly disclose, however, Rawat teaches
wherein the switch comprises an access switch (AS) of the network or a distribution switch (DS) of the network (par.64-69, fig.5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderveen/Basu to use the network access and distribution switches as taught by Rawat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to facilitate connections between devices (Rawat, par.3-12, 56-69).
Regarding claim 13, Vanderveen/ Basu/Rawat teaches wherein the AS is connected to at least one distribution switch (DS) of the network (Rawat, par.64-69, fig.5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to device authentication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409