DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to claims 1-11 filed December 05, 2024 for examination. Claims 1-11 are being examined and are pending.
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 filed 12/23/2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/05/2024 have been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,093,288 B1 to Hydrie et al. (“Hydrie”).
Regarding claim 1, Hydrie taught a device for sending and/or receiving messages in a bus communication, the device comprising: a filter configured to: (i) restrict sending and/or receiving of messages in the bus communication to messages of authenticated participants of the bus communication, (Col. 4, lines 25-29: Filters 114 are a set of one or more filters that impose restrictions on the ability of the corresponding computing device to transmit data packets to and/or receive data packets from other computing devices. Col. 13, lines 29-37: Filters 114 identify other nodes 210 and possibly other sources or targets (e.g., coupled to network 106 of FIG. 1) that data can (or alternatively cannot) be sent to and/or received from. The nodes or other sources/targets can be identified in any of a wide variety of manners, such as by network address (e.g., Internet Protocol (IP) address), some other globally unique identifier, a locally unique identifier (e.g., a numbering scheme proprietary or local to co-location facility 208), etc.) and (ii) allow receiving a message for authenticating the device as a participant of the bus communication; (Col. 18, lines 19-25: access, upon receipt of a data packet requested to be sent from the computing device to a target device via a network, the set of filters and determine whether the data packet can be sent to the target device based on whether the computing device is allowed to communicate with the target device) and a hardware security subsystem (Col. 4, lines 18-20, 25-29. Each network mediator 108 and 110 includes a controller 112, a set of one or more filters 114. Network mediator 110 can be implemented within computing device 104 in any of a variety of manners. By way of example, network mediator 110 may be implemented on a network interface card (NIC) of device 104) configured to authenticate the device as a participant of the bus communication depending on the message for authenticating the device (Col. 13, lines 38-40: Filters 114 can fully restrict access to a node (e.g., no data can be received from or sent to the node), or partially restrict access to a node. Col. 5, lines 28-33: The network mediator allows only authorized remote devices (e.g., only devices with particular addresses and/or that can authenticate themselves using an identifier and a password) to modify filters 114 and data 116. See Col. 8, lines 9-14: Packets are sent only to matched target device address).
Claims 6 and 11 recite similar limitations to claim 1, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claims 6 and 11, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Hydrie as above.
Examiner’s Notes: Claim recite, “a filter configured to…” A filter is not a generic placeholder, it is a known term in the art. Therefore, the limitation does not invoke 112 (f). Further the specification discloses,
PNG
media_image1.png
578
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hydrie further taught the device according to claim 1, wherein the filter is configured to allow sending a message for requesting to authenticate the device as a participant (Col. 18, lines 21-25: determine whether the data packet can be sent to the target device based on whether the computing device is allowed to communicate with the target device).
Claim 7 recites similar limitations to claim 2, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 7, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Hydrie as above.
Regarding claim 3, Hydrie further taught the device according to claim 1, wherein the filter is configurable to restrict sending and/or receiving of messages in the bus communication to the messages of the authenticated participants (Col. 4, lines 25-29: Filters 114 are a set of one or more filters that impose restrictions on the ability of the corresponding computing device to transmit data packets to and/or receive data packets from other computing devices.), and wherein the hardware security subsystem (Col. 4, lines 18-20, 25-29. Each network mediator 108 and 110 includes a controller 112, a set of one or more filters 114. Network mediator 110 can be implemented within computing device 104 in any of a variety of manners. By way of example, network mediator 110 may be implemented on a network interface card (NIC) of device 104) is configured to configure the filter to restrict the sending and/or receiving of messages in the bus communication to the messages of the authenticated participants and/or to configure the filter to allow receiving the message for authenticating the device as a participant of the bus communication (Col. 18, lines 21-25: determine whether the data packet can be sent to the target device based on whether the computing device is allowed to communicate with the target device).
Claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 3, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 8, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Hydrie as above.
Regarding claim 4, Hydrie further taught the device according to claim 3, wherein the hardware security subsystem is configured to restrict the sending and/or receiving of messages in the bus communication to the messages of the authenticated participants upon authenticating the device as a participant of the bus communication (Col. 18, lines 28-30: forward the data packet to the target device at the target network address if it is determined the data packet can be sent to the target device).
Regarding claim 5, Hydrie further taught the device according to claim 3, wherein the filter and the hardware security subsystem are configured to restrict the sending and/or receiving of messages in the bus communication to one or more communication zones of the bus communication (Col. 2, lines 35-40: a network mediator corresponding to a computing device uses packet filters and a multiple managerial level architecture to restrict network communications. The network mediator includes a set of one or more filters. See further Col. 7, lines 55-59. Col. 9, lines 5-6: The nodes 210 are grouped together in clusters, referred to as server clusters (or node clusters). Col. 11, lines 20-30: Cluster operations management console 240 also establishes cluster boundaries within co-location facility 208 by adding filters to the network mediator corresponding to each node 210 that allows the node to communicate only with other nodes in its cluster. The cluster boundaries established by console 240 prevent nodes 210 in one cluster (e.g., cluster 212) from communicating with nodes in another cluster (e.g., any node not in cluster 212), while at the same time not interfering with the ability of nodes 210 within a cluster from communicating with other nodes within that cluster.).
Regarding claim 9, Hydrie further taught the method according to claim 8, wherein the hardware security subsystem is configured to configure the filter to restrict the sending and/or receiving of messages in the bus communication to the messages of the authenticated participants upon authenticating the device as a participant of the bus communication (Col. 4, lines 25-29: Filters 114 are a set of one or more filters that impose restrictions on the ability of the corresponding computing device to transmit data packets to and/or receive data packets from other computing devices. Col. 18, lines 21-25: determine whether the data packet can be sent to the target device based on whether the computing device is allowed to communicate with the target device), and wherein the method further comprises configuring the filter with the hardware security subsystem upon authenticating the device as a participant of the bus communication (Col. 4, lines 18-20, 25-29. Each network mediator 108 and 110 includes a controller 112, a set of one or more filters 114. Col. 18, lines 28-30: forward the data packet to the target device at the target network address if it is determined the data packet can be sent to the target device).
Regarding claim 10, Hydrie further taught the method according to claim 6, wherein the filter and the hardware security subsystem are configured to restrict the sending and/or receiving of messages in the bus communication to one or more communication zones of the bus communication, and wherein the method further comprises restricting the sending and/or receiving of messages in the bus communication to the one or more communication zones (Col. 2, lines 35-40: a network mediator corresponding to a computing device uses packet filters and a multiple managerial level architecture to restrict network communications. The network mediator includes a set of one or more filters. See further Col. 7, lines 55-59. Col. 9, lines 5-6: The nodes 210 are grouped together in clusters, referred to as server clusters (or node clusters). Col. 11, lines 20-30: Cluster operations management console 240 also establishes cluster boundaries within co-location facility 208 by adding filters to the network mediator corresponding to each node 210 that allows the node to communicate only with other nodes in its cluster. The cluster boundaries established by console 240 prevent nodes 210 in one cluster (e.g., cluster 212) from communicating with nodes in another cluster (e.g., any node not in cluster 212), while at the same time not interfering with the ability of nodes 210 within a cluster from communicating with other nodes within that cluster.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2004/025921 A2 (Gehrmann et al.): a filter mechanism is provided in the server communications device which allows a selective access control and a mechanism to restrict or limit access to the subscription module, thereby increasing the security of the subscription module access. Even though the client communications device is authenticated, it is not necessarily authorised to access all the services provided by the subscription module, thereby increasing the security. Only those messages from the client communications device addressing functions and/or data on the subscription module which are authorised by the filter mechanism, are accepted and forwarded to the subscription module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWNCHOY RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7471. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30A-5P ET.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached at 5712723787. 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.
/Shawnchoy Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights