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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on October 25, 2024, and in
response to the election/restriction response. Applicant elected claims 1-18 without travers. Clams 19-32 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-8 represent IN-LINE TRAFFIC SANITIZATION DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONFIGURING SAME.
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.
2. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al. U.S. 10,957,170 in view of Ko U.S. 10,346,614, further in view of Nordmark et al. U.S. 8,630,296.
Racz teaches substantial features of the claimed invention including Network Sanitization For-Dedicated Communication Function And Edge Enforcement (see abstract).
As to claims 1, Racz teaches a method for operating a traffic sanitization device connectable intermediate an end device and a data network communicatively coupled to a server (column 6, lines 20-27), the method comprising:
establishing a secure communication link with the server over the data network (column 15, lines 36-49);
implementing traffic sanitization on packets received from the end device (column 5, lines 1-27; claim 14), wherein packets that have been sanitized are sent to the server over the secure communication link (column 15, lines 36-49).
Racz teaches substantial features of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach configuration parameters of the end device required for communicating with the server.
However, Ko teaches Security System And Method For Internet Of Things. Ko teaches acquiring configuration parameters of the end device required for communicating with the server (column 9, lines 40-47; claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Racz to include the teaching of “remote attestation message transmitted by the local Internet of Things (IoT) device comprises an Internet Protocol address and a port number that is destined to the remote attestation server” of Ko with the motivation being to allow the network traffic sanitization engine filters data packet communications between the local IoT device and the remote attestation server (abstract).
Racz and Ko fail to explicitly teach creating a network stack for communication with the server, the network stack including the acquired configuration parameters of the end device; and using the created network stack.
However, Nordmark teaches Shared And Separate Network Stack Instances. Nordmark teaches creating a network stack for communication with the server, the network stack including the acquired configuration parameters of the end device; and using the created network stack (column 7, lines 1-25; column 9, lines 15-35; claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Nordmark’s known technique of creating a virtual network stack using a required network configuration to the communication parameters obtained from the end device as taught by Ko, when implementing the sanitization architecture of Racz. Such a modification would have provided the sanitization device with a network-stack configuration corresponding to the communication requirements of the end device while retaining Racz’s secure tunneling and traffic-sanitization functionality.
As to claim 2, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 1, wherein the configuration parameters were previously used by the end device for communication with the server (column 4, lines 56-65 of Ko).
As to claim 3, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 1, wherein acquiring the configuration parameters includes intercepting the configuration parameters sent from the end device (claim 14 of Racz).
As to claim 4, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 3, further comprising causing the end device to send the configuration parameters (claim 1 of Ko).
As to claim 5, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 4, wherein causing the end device to send the configuration parameters comprises rebooting the end device (claim 1 of Ko).
As to claim 6, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 5, wherein causing the end device to send the configuration parameters comprises sending a request to the end device (abstract of Ko).
As to claim 7, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 1, wherein the configuration parameters comprise compriseparameters required by the traffic sanitization device to emulate the end device over the data network (claim 1 of Racz).
As to claim 8, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 7, further comprising identifying the set of parameters by consulting a list of parameters stored in a memory of the traffic sanitization device (claims 12-14 of Racz).
As to claim 9, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 3, wherein the end device is a surveillance camera and wherein the intercepting comprises passively listening in on packets of video data sent by the surveillance camera (claim 1 of Racz).
10. (Original) The method defined in claim 1, further comprising sending a discovery packet to the server to cause the server to signal to a user of the server that a device having the configuration parameters is ready to be re-registered column 1, lines 28-41).
As to claim 11, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 1, wherein the secure communication link is established based on a "trust-on-first-use" method (abstract of Racz).
As to claim 12, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 1, wherein the secure communication link is based on a pre-established trust between the traffic sanitization device and the server (abstract of Racz).
As to claim 13, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 1, wherein implementing traffic sanitization on packets received from the end device comprises blocking the received packets, administering a test to the received packets for security purposes and re-transmitting the received packets towards the server if the test is passed (claim 14 of Racz).
As to claim 14, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 1, wherein the secure communication link is established by the traffic sanitization device communicating using the created network stack (abstracts of Racz and Ko).
As to claim 15, Racz, Ko and Nordmark teach the method defined in claim 1, further comprising creating a second network stack including configuration parameters of the traffic sanitization device, wherein the secure communication link is established by the traffic sanitization device using the second network stack (abstracts of Racz and Ko).
Claims 16-18 did not teach anything different from above rejected claims 1-15, therefore are rejected similarly.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL HADJI SALL whose telephone number is (571)272-4010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-8:30 (flexible).
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 5712724001. 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.
/EL HADJI M SALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights