Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/948,775

Zero Trust Network Branch

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Examiner
HOFFMAN, BRANDON S
Art Unit
2433
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Zscaler Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
1125 granted / 1238 resolved
+32.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1269
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§103
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1238 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 15, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of network security and traffic management. Specifically, the claims describe receiving, processing, and routing traffic flows (east-west and north-south) based on security policies. This falls under the category of "certain organized human activity" and "data manipulation" that has been historically performed by human network administrators or standard automated systems. The claims do not provide an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The components (cloud nodes, switches, endpoints) are recited at a high level of generality. The security processing functions (NAC, DNS, DHCP, SIEM) listed in Claim 4 are well-known, routine services in the industry. Performing these routine services in a cloud environment instead of on-premises (as noted in Claim 5) represents a change in the location of the processing, not a fundamental change in the technology of the computer or network itself. As a result, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing communication security on a generic computer network and are therefore ineligible. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiganmi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,412,051) in view of Panchal et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,819,630). Regarding claims 1 and 10, Chiganmi et al. teaches a cloud system comprising one or more nodes configured to: responsive to isolating each endpoint of a plurality of endpoints receive east-west and north-south traffic flows associated with the plurality of endpoints from the branch network (col. 11, lines 28-40); perform security processing on the east-west and north-south traffic flows (col. 10, line 54 through col. 11, line 14 and col. 16, lines 3-25); and route the east-west and north-south traffic flows accordingly, subsequent to the security processing (col. 14, lines 10-17). Chiganmi et al. does not teach in a branch network at Layer 2. Panchal et al. teaches in a branch network at Layer 2 (col. 19, lines 32-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine branching at Layer 2, as taught by Panchal et al., with the method of Chiganmi et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications to ensure that every endpoint in a branch is logically isolated at Layer 2 to prevent unauthorized lateral movement. Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Chiganmi et al. teaches wherein the security processing is based on one or more security applications selectively configured for the east-west and north-south traffic flows (col. 14, lines 25-34). Regarding claims 3 and 12, Chiganmi et al. teaches wherein the security processing includes secure service edge (SSE) or secure access service edge (SASE) functionality along with one or more additional services (col. 9, lines 1-12). Regarding claims 4 and 13, Chiganmi et al. teaches wherein the security processing includes any of network access control (NAC), DDI (domain name system (DNS), dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP), and Internet Protocol (IP) Address Management, network detection and response (NDR), and security information and event management (SIEM) (col. 10, lines 18-45). Regarding claims 5 and 14, Chiganmi et al. teaches wherein the branch network excludes on premises appliances or security services (col. 3, lines 29-41). Regarding claims 6 and 15, Chiganmi et al. teaches wherein the east-west and north-south traffic flows are configured through a switch to the cloud system except inter-virtual local area network (VLAN) Layer 2 Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM) which stays local on the branch network (col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 26). Regarding claims 7 and 16, Chiganmi et al. teaches wherein the east-west traffic flows are sent via a switch through the cloud where the east-west traffic flows are between two endpoints on the branch network (col. 5, line 63 through col. 6, line 26). Regarding claims 8 and 17, Chiganmi et al. as modified by Panchal et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of endpoints are isolated based on a subnet mask placing each endpoint in its own subnet (see col. 22, line 53 through col. 23, line 20 of Panchal et al.). Regarding claims 9 and 18, Chiganmi et al. teaches wherein the east-west and north-south traffic flows are received based on encapsulating ethernet traffic inside one of a plurality of Layer 3 tunnels established between the switch and the cloud system (claim 17 and 19). Regarding claim 19, Chiganmi et al. teaches an edge switch in a branch network including a plurality of endpoints, the edge switch comprising circuitry configured to: isolate each endpoint of a plurality of endpoints (col. 11, lines 28-40); transmit east-west and north-south traffic flows associated with the plurality of endpoints to a cloud system where security processing is performed on the east-west and north-south traffic flows (col. 10, line 54 through col. 11, line 14 and col. 16, lines 3-25); and receive traffic based on the east-west and north-south traffic flows accordingly, subsequent to the security processing (col. 14, lines 10-17). Chiganmi et al. does not teach in a branch network at Layer 2. Panchal et al. teaches in a branch network at Layer 2 (col. 19, lines 32-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine branching at Layer 2, as taught by Panchal et al., with the method of Chiganmi et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications to ensure that every endpoint in a branch is logically isolated at Layer 2 to prevent unauthorized lateral movement. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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. /BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598185
DESCENDENT CASE ROLE ALIAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597311
Access Control System for Electric Vehicle Charging
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579293
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR API GATEWAY SYNCHRONIZATION WITH CLOUD STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579295
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566878
DATA SANITIZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1238 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month