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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 17, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The replacement sheet filed on March 19, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant asserts on page 3 of the response filed on March 19, 2026, “[t]he replacement figure illustrates that the hub 106 communicates with the devices 104 to collect telemetry data from the devices 104, as described in paragraphs 19, 23, 30, 44, and 53 of the application as filed.” It is the Examiner’s position that none of the above paragraphs support the devices 104 communicating directly with the gateway 108, without going through the hub 106. If Applicant can show support in the original specification where the devices 104 communicate directly with the gateway 108 without going through the hub 106, then the Examiner will withdraw the objection to the replacement sheet.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 2, that “[n]one of the references are cited for, nor do they describe a hub device that is different from the gateway device, where: (i) the hub device receives telemetry data, analyzes the telemetry data, and generates network rules based on the telemetry data; and (ii) connections to and from devices in the network are routed through the gateway device. Further, Akali does not teach or suggest "receiving at a hub device, first telemetry data from one or more devices belonging to a first device group." Instead, the cited portions of the Akali reference describe that "the zero-trust gatekeeper 300 may be configured to determine one or more zero-trust policies and/or microsegments based on one or more user defined tags..." and provides examples of what devices may be tagged based on.”
It is the Examiner’s position that gatekeeper 300 is a hub device that is different from the gateway device 203, where: (i) the hub device 300 receives telemetry data, analyzes the telemetry data, and generates network rules based on the telemetry data; and (ii) connections to and from devices in the network are routed through the gateway device 203, in addition to the hub 300.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akali et al (hereinafter “Akali”, US Patent 12,177,261).
Regarding claim 1, Akali teaches a method, performed at a computing device (Figure 4) having one or more processors and memory, the method comprising:
receiving, at a hub device (300), first telemetry data (Column 10, lines 50- 66) from one or more devices belonging to a first device group (402.1), wherein:
the one or more devices of the first device group are part of a network (Figure 4); and
connections to and from each device of the first device group are routed through a gateway device (203) that is different from the hub device;
automatically generating, at the hub device, one or more first rules (See column 11, lines 11-18, “one or more zero-trust policies that may reduce network access and/or paths”) for the first device group based on the first telemetry data, wherein the one or more first rules specify which connections are allowed or blocked for the one or more devices of the first device group (Column, 11, line 11+, “the model may limit the network access for a respective device 210 to only what is required for the device”);
updating, at the hub device, network rules (See column 12, line 30+, “automatically adjusted”) for the first device group based on the one or more first rules for the first device group, wherein the network rules for the first device group specify which connections are allowed or blocked for the one or more devices that are part of the first device group and connected to the network (Column 12, lines 53-57); and
transmitting the updated network rules for the first device group from the hub device to the one or more devices (Column 14, lines 48, “a first policy shared with device 410”) of the first device group.
Regarding claim 2, Akali further teaches receiving, at the hub device, second telemetry data from a second device group (Figure 4, 402.2), wherein:
the second device group includes one or more devices;
the one or more devices of the second device group are part of the network (Figure 4); and
the one or more devices of the second device group are distinct from and non-overlapping with the one or more devices of the first device group (402.1 and 402.2 are distinct and non-overlapping);
automatically generating, at the hub device, one or more second rules for the second device group based on the second telemetry data, wherein:
the one or more second rules specify which connections are allowed or blocked for the one or more devices of the second device group (Same as described above with respect to the first device group); and
connections to and from each device of the second device group are routed through the gateway device;
updating, at the hub device, network rules for the second device group based on the one or more second rules for the second device group, wherein the one or more second rules for the second device group are different from the one or more first rules for the first device group (Column 6, lines 18-22, “access to each of these microsegments may be closely controlled”, “the devices within a particular microsegment are under the same zero-trust least privilege network security policy”); and
transmitting the network rules for the second device group from the hub device to the one or more devices of the second device group (Same as described above with respect to the first device group).
Regarding claim 3, Akali teaches the first telemetry data includes telemetry data for a first device that is part of the first device group (Column 10, lines 50- 66);
the telemetry data for the first device includes information regarding one or more connections to the first device; and
for each connection of the one or more connections to the first device, information regarding the respective connection to the first device includes an IP address associated with the respective connection (Column 10, line 60, the “and/or” in the claim only requires one of the limitations in the information list (i.e., regarding respective connections that are claimed) for the claim to be met).
Regarding claim 4, Akali teaches wherein the first telemetry data includes a table of MAC addresses (Column 10, line 60, “one or more MAC addresses”) and a respective IP address (Column 10, line 60, “IP addresses” and column 10, lines 16 and 17, “operable to assign the IP addresses to the devices 210”) corresponding to each MAC address.
With regard to claims 8-11, they are the device claims that correspond to method claims 1-4 above, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
With regard to claims 15-18, they are the computer readable medium claims that correspond to claims 1-4 above, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
With regard to claim 21, Akali further teaches (Column, 12, lines 5-9),“one of more zero-trust security agents for the device(s) 210 may additionally, or alternatively, be used to implement one or more aspects of the disclosure”), i.e., a first trust agent that is executed on the first device to collect information regarding connections to and from the first device and transmit the collected information to the hub device as part of the first telemetry data.
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 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akali et al (hereinafter “Akali”, US Patent 12,177,261) in view of Freilich et al (hereinafter “Freilich”, US Patent Publication 2022/0019366).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Akali teaches prior to generating the one or more first rules, aggregating the first telemetry data (Column 16, line 23+, “the monitoring may include collecting…). Akali does not teach removing redundant information within the first telemetry data. However, Freilich teaches (Paragraph 0028) that it is known to eliminate or remove redundant data to improve utilization of storage resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide Akali with the ability to remove redundant data as taught by Freilich. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide Akali with the ability to remove redundant data as taught by Freilich since removing redundant data improves utilization of storage resources.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akali et al (hereinafter “Akali”, US Patent 12,177,261) in view of Smith (US Patent Publication 2025/0008328).
With regard to claims 6 and 13, Akali teaches all the limitations as set forth above except for the details of joining a new device to the network. Smith teaches detecting a request from a new device to join the network (See Figures 4A, 4B and paragraph 0154); assigning the new device to a default device group in accordance with a new device policy that is determined by an administrator of the network (See paragraph 0155, “the processor configuring the device with necessary settings, policies and security measures” and paragraph 0159, “the processor may group devices based on trust level”); and transmitting network rules for the default device group to the new device based on the new device policy (Paragraph 0155, “the processor configuring the device with necessary settings, policies and security measures”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide Akali with the method of adding new devices as taught by Smith. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide Akali with the method of adding new devices as taught by Smith since Smith teaches a secure method to add new devices to the network.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akali et al (hereinafter “Akali”, US Patent 12,177,261) in view of Smith (US Patent Publication 2025/0008328), and further in view of Kannan et al (hereinafter “Kannan”, U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0336412).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Kannan further teaches that it is known to receive an administrator request to remove a new device from a device group and to add the new device to another device group, and transmitting the network rules for the another device group to the new device (See paragraph 0091). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the administrator of Akali in view of Smith with the ability to move new devices to different groups as taught by Kannan. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide Akali in view of Smith with the ability to move new devices to different groups as taught by Kannan since the administrator is in control of who accesses the network, and the security policies of devices in the network. Therefore, the administrator would move devices around that makes sense for maintaining the security of the network.
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 WILLIAM R KORZUCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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.
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights