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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/23/2024. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 1-16 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made non-FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/23/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to Claim 1, the acronym Wi-Fi and ISP should be spelled out in full as its first occurrence. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding to Claim 3, Claim 3 recites “Wi-fi enabled” in line 4. It is suggested that the claim be further amend as “Wi-fi-enabled” for consistency with claim 1.
Regarding to Claim 6 and Claim 8, the claims recite “the predefined lists” in line 1 and line 2. It is suggested that the claim be further amend as “the predefined list” to void potentially insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding to Claim 9, the acronym Wi-Fi and ISP should be spelled out in full as its first occurrence. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding to Claim 11, Claim 3 recites “Wi-fi enabled” in line 4. It is suggested that the claim be further amend as “Wi-fi-enabled” for consistency with claim 1.
Regarding to Claim 14 and Claim 16, the claims recite “the predefined lists” in line 1 and line 2. It is suggested that the claim be further amend as “the predefined list” to void potentially insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1; claim 1 recites the limitation “the ISP router” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2; claim 2 recites the limitation “the first radio channel module” and “the second radio channel” in lines 5 and 8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4; claim 4 recites the limitation “the environment” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5; claim 5 recites the limitation “the WAN interface module” and “the LAN interface module” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9; claim 9 recites the limitation “the ISP router” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10; claim 10 recites the limitation “the first radio channel module” and “the second radio channel” in lines 5 and 8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12; claim 12 recites the limitation “the environment” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13; claim 13 recites the limitation “the WAN interface module” and “the LAN interface module” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm (“Boehm,” US 2004/0085944) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA,” US 2025/0219995, pars. [0005]-[0006], FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 1, Boehm discloses a network security device that operates as a network security gateway for securing Wi-Fi-enabled devices, wherein the network security device comprises:
a memory that comprises a set of instructions (Boehm: fig. 3, par. 0022, Boehm teaches a portable wireless Internet gateway 315 that includes a router 330 providing "routing, filtering, network address translation, firewall, DHCP, and automatic network login services."); and
a processor (Boehm: par. 0022, Boehm's portable wireless Internet gateway 315 performs routing, filtering, NAT, firewall, DHCP services. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a device performing these computational functions necessarily includes a processor to execute the stored instructions.) that executes the set of instructions comprising:
connecting to a generic “relay device 340” via wireless 802.11 on the WAN side and providing secured LAN access (Boehm: par. 0027, Boehm further teaches the WAN interface "may be a short-range transmission technology, such as IEEE 802.11, rather than a mobile technology" []the portable wireless Internet gateway 315 may interface to another wireless device, a relay device 340 that includes the ability to transmit and receive data with the portable wireless internet gateway 315 and provides either wired access to the Internet 375 through networking equipment 374 or wireless access to the Internet 375 through a mobile telephony channel 372.”; par. 0026, that the interchangeable network interface 350 can connect using “802.11b Wireless WAN” technology; par. 0022, The router 330 “serves as a barrier to protect the LAN from the external network 370” and “provides routing, filtering, network address translation, firewall, DHCP, and automatic network login services for the LAN.”; . par. 0021, Boehm teaches "a wireless access point 325" that provides 802.11b wireless connectivity to user devices forming a LAN; par. 0023, Boehm teaches "an interchangeable network interface 350" that provides wireless access to the external network).
monitoring network traffic between the WAN interface and a Local Area Network (LAN) interface to block unauthorized network traffic from reaching the Wi-Fi-enabled devices (Boehm: par. 0022, The router 330 serves as a barrier to protect the LAN from the external network 370. The router 330 provides routing, filtering, network address translation, firewall, DHCP, and automatic network login services for the LAN … The router 330 can also provide a secure bridge between the connected networks; pars. [0020]-[0021]: The gateway 315 includes a local networked interface (hub/switch 320 and wireless access point 325) providing the LAN interface to PCs and devices 326/327, and the interchangeable network interface 350 providing the WAN interface to external network 370); and
routing network traffic to the secured Wi-Fi network through the LAN interface that is communicatively connected to the Wi-Fi-enabled devices to provide a secure internet connection to the Wi-Fi-enabled devices (Boehm: par. Boehm teaches routing traffic from the external network to LAN devices. Per , Claim 1, "a router for receiving data from the plurality of computing devices and routing the data towards the appropriate destination on the global data network and receiving data from the global data network directed to at least one of the plurality of computing devices and routing the data to the at least one of the plurality of computing devices."; par. 0021, The wireless access point 325 “utilizes 802.11b wireless communication technology” to provide a wireless LAN interface to a first group of PCs and other devices 326. The router 330 “provides routing” services, routing traffic from the external network 370 through the firewall-protected pathway to the LAN devices; par. 0022, "The router 330 provides routing, filtering, network address translation, firewall, DHCP, and automatic network login services for the LAN.").
Boehm teaches “connecting to a generic “relay device 340” via wireless 802.11 on the WAN side and providing secured LAN access; and block monitoring network traffic between the WAN interface and a Local Area Network (LAN) interface to block unauthorized network traffic from reaching the Wi-Fi-enabled devices but does not explicitly disclose
“converting an unsecured Wi-Fi network that is generated by the ISP router into a secured Wi-Fi network using a Wide Area Network (WAN) interface that is communicatively connected to the ISP router.” and “blocking unauthorized traffic from reaching the ISP router”.
However, in an analogous art, AAPA discloses the upstream device is an ISP router that generates an unsecured Wi-Fi network (AAPA: par. [0005], AAPA admis “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a system that illustrates a process of connecting one or more user devices 106A-N to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) router 104, either through Ethernet cables or unsecured Wi-Fi, in accordance with prior art.”; par. [0006], AAPA further admits: “The ISP router 104 connects to the ISP unit 102 to obtain internet access. The ISP router 104 is connected to the ISP unit 102 and serves as the central access point for the one or more user devices 106A-N, facilitating internet connectivity. The one or more user devices 106A-N (e.g., PCs, smartphones, IoT devices) connect to the ISP router 104 either through Ethernet cables (wired connection), or unsecured Wi-Fi Network (wireless connection).”
blocking unauthorized traffic from reaching “the ISP router (AAPA: pars. [0005]-[0006]; Boehm: par. 0022, The router 330 “serves as a barrier to protect the LAN from the external network 370” and “provides routing, filtering, network address translation, firewall, DHCP, and automatic network login services for the LAN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of AAPA with the method and system of Boehm to include “converting an unsecured Wi-Fi network that is generated by the ISP router into a secured Wi-Fi network using a Wide Area Network (WAN) interface that is communicatively connected to the ISP router. and “blocking unauthorized traffic from reaching the ISP router”. One would have been motivated to substitute Boehm’s generic “relay device 340” with the well-known ISP router that generates an unsecured Wi-Fi network, as admitted by AAPA because Known Element Substitution: ISP routers providing internet access via unsecured Wi-Fi are the standard and most common source of internet connectivity in home and small business environments, as admitted by Applicant. Substituting Boehm’s generic relay device with this specific, well-known type of upstream device yields predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 is directed to a method for a network security device that operates as a network security gateway for securing Wi-Fi-enabled devices associated with the method claimed in claim 1; claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm (“Boehm,” US 2004/0085944) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA,” US 2025/0219995, pars. [0005]-[0006], FIG. 1), and Proctor, Jr. et al. (“Proctor,” US 7,990,904), and further in view of Amini et al. (“Amini,” US 2018/0103505).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Boehm and AAPA teaches the network security device of claim 1. The combination of Boehm and AAPA discloses wireless communication upstream to the ISP router as recited above but does not explicitly disclose detecting an operating frequency band of the ISP router.
However, in an analogous art, Proctor discloses detecting an operating frequency band of the ISP router (Proctor: Col. 9, lies 63-67, "repeater 250 scans all available channels in the WLAN environment, choosing the best frequency channel characterized as the frequency channel from the desired AP having the strongest signal or best quality signal as determined, for example, by way of beacon transmission associated therewith" ; Col. 10, lines 1-3, "Repeater 250 stores the channel number and other relevant information, for example, in memory 262 to use for repeater operation" ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Proctor with the method and system of Boehm and AAPA to include detecting an operating frequency band of the ISP router. One would have been motivated to so because Proctor teaches that scanning for the upstream AP's frequency channel enables the repeater to self-configure "out of the box" and maintain communications with the preferred AP even when moved to a different location (Proctor: Col. 6, lines 9-14, 27-29), thereby improving the ease of deployment and reliability of the wireless connection to the ISP router.
Boehm, AAPA, and Proctor do not explicitly disclose “determining optimal frequency bands for the Wi-Fi-enabled devices …;” “dynamically assigning the first radio channel module to the WAN interface or the LAN interface …;” “dynamically assigning the second radio channel module to the LAN interface or the WAN interface …”, “wherein the first radio channel module and the second radio channel module are dynamically assigned and configured to reduce interference.
However, in an analogous art, Amini discloses
determining optimal frequency bands for the Wi-Fi-enabled devices based on the operating frequency band detected for the ISP router (Amini: par. 0033, "characteristics of the network data packets such as the type of data of the network data packets (e.g., network packets corresponding to video playback) can be determined and used to change or adjust the bands or channels of backhaul communication links and/or fronthaul communication links"; par. 0040, "Based on those determined characteristics, the bands and/or channels being used by backhaul communication links and/or fronthaul communication links can be adjusted to different bands and/or channels"; par. 0049, "the characteristics of the network data packets can be used to determine a priority. Network data packets in a fronthaul communication link that have a higher priority than network data packets in a backhaul communication link can be prioritized by providing the fronthaul communication with a band or channel with a higher or better data throughput").
dynamically assigning the first radio channel module to the WAN interface or the LAN interface based on the operating frequency band detected for the ISP router and the optimal frequency bands of the Wi-Fi-enabled devices (Amini: par. 0034, "the fronthaul communication links or the backhaul communication links can switch the bands that they operate within, for example, by the satellite node using a different radio for those communication links" ; par. 0040, "the radio used to generate the communication links can be switched to radios corresponding to the different bands"; par. 0041, "fronthaul communication link 105a can be changed from the 2.4 GHz band to the 5 GHz lower band. Additionally, backhaul communication link 110c can be changed from the 5 GHz lower band to the 2.4 GHz band"); and
dynamically assigning the second radio channel module to the LAN interface or the WAN interface based on the operating frequency band detected for the ISP router and the optimal frequency bands of the Wi-Fi-enabled devices (Amini: par. 0041, "a fronthaul communication link and a backhaul communication link used by satellite node 125b can be adjusted to different bands by exchanging the bands used by those links" []"the fronthaul communication link is provided the band with the higher bandwidth so that it can have a higher data throughput" ; par. 0055, Processing device includes "radios 620, for example, a different radio for each band that communication links can be established within".),
wherein the first radio channel module and the second radio channel module are dynamically assigned and configured to reduce interference (Amini: [0036] In FIG. 1, fronthaul communication link 105b can be established by access point node 125a to operate at the 5GHz upper band such that data can be transmitted backand-forth between access point node 125a and client device 120b using signals operating within that band. Fronthaul communication link 105a can be established by access point node 125b at the 2.4 GHz band. By contrast, backhaul communication links ll0a-c can be established to operate at a different band than the fronthaul communication links 105a and 105b such as within the 5 GHz lower band. Though the example uses different bands, in other implementations, backhaul communication links ll0a-c and fronthaul communication links 105a and 105b can be established using different channels within the same band. The communication links can be established using radios and antennas. For example, different radios can be used to generate signals for the different bands and transmitted with antennas.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Amini with the method and system of Boehm, AAPA, and Proctor to include determining optimal frequency bands for the Wi-Fi-enabled devices …; dynamically assigning the first radio channel module to the WAN interface or the LAN interface …; dynamically assigning the second radio channel module to the LAN interface or the WAN interface .., wherein the first radio channel module and the second radio channel module are dynamically assigned and configured to reduce interference. One would have been motivated to provide dynamically assigning frequency bands to fronthaul (LAN-side) and backhaul (WAN-side) links based on traffic characteristics provides "increased throughput" and prioritizes higher-bandwidth applications (Amini: pars. 0041, 0043).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm (“Boehm,” US 2004/0085944) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA,” US 2025/0219995, pars. [0005]-[0006], FIG. 1), further in view of Proctor, Jr. et al. (“Proctor,” US 7,990,904)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Boehm and AAPA teaches the network security device of claim 1. The combination of Boehm and AAPA teaches the wireless connection to the ISP router as recited above but does not explicitly teach extending the Wi-Fi coverage of that upstream the ISP router.
However, in an analogous art, Proctor discloses a wireless repeater that connects to an upstream access point and extends the AP's coverage area by receiving packets on a first frequency channel and retransmitting them on a second frequency channel (Proctor teaches: Col. 7, lines 22-24, "wireless repeater 200 receives packets transmitted on a first frequency channel 201 from the wireless gateway 100" ; Col. 7, lines 41-44, "the wireless repeater 200 is capable of simultaneously receiving and transmitting signals as well as extending the coverage and performance of the wireless gateway 100 to the client unit 105"; Col. 7, lines 14-20, "the signals carried over the RF path 103 and intended for the client unit 105 would be attenuated when passing through a structural barrier such as walls 106 or 107 to a point where few, if any, data packets are received in either direction if not for a wireless repeater 200").).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Proctor with the method and system of Boehm and AAPA to include extending a Wi-Fi coverage of the ISP router by communicatively connecting the WAN interface with the ISP router, wherein the WAN interface is configured to extend the Wi-Fi coverage of the ISP router and provide the secured Wi-Fi network to the Wi-Fi enabled devices connected to the ISP router. One would have been motivated to do so because: (1) Proctor teaches that a wireless repeater solves the problem of client devices being unable to receive data packets due to signal attenuation through structural barriers such as walls (Proctor: Col. 7, lines 14-20), and the Rao application itself identifies limited Wi-Fi coverage as a known problem in the art (AAPA: par. [0007]); (2) Proctor teaches that the repeater extends the coverage AND performance of the upstream access point to reach distant client devices (Proctor: Col. 8, lines 9-13), which directly addresses the Rao application's stated goal of providing broader Wi-Fi coverage; (3) Both Boehm and Proctor operate in the same field of IEEE 802.11 wireless networking, and adding repeater/extender functionality to an existing wireless security gateway is a combination of known elements (security gateway + Wi-Fi repeater) that yields the predictable result of extended and secured Wi-Fi coverage. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm (“Boehm,” US 2004/0085944) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA,” US 2025/0219995, pars. [0005]-[0006], FIG. 1), further in view of Jang et al. (“Jang,” US 2011/0184582)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Boehm and AAPA teaches the network security device of claim 1. The combination of Boehm and AAPA teaches wherein the set of instructions comprises:
converting the unsecured Wi-Fi network into the secured Wi-Fi network as recited above but does not explicitly disclose “when a user selects the unsecured Wi-Fi network among a plurality of available unsecured Wi-Fi networks in the environment.”
However, in an analogous art, Jang discloses conversion being triggered by a user selecting the unsecured Wi-Fi network among a plurality of available unsecured Wi-Fi networks in the environment (Jang: par. 0043, "The network to which the control device and the participating controlled devices belong may be a wired network, such as a Pipe Line Communication (PLC) network, an Ethernet network, etc., or a wireless network, such as a Bluetooth network, a Wi-Fi network, a ZigBee network, etc." ; par. 0102 "In a second exemplary method, in order to detect a network identifier of a preferred network, the non-participating controlled device displays network identifiers of detected networks on a display unit included in the non-participating controlled device itself, and a user selects an identifier of a preferred network from among the displayed network identifiers").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang with the method and system of Boehm and AAPA to include converting the unsecured Wi-Fi network into the secured Wi-Fi network when a user selects the unsecured Wi-Fi network among a plurality of available unsecured Wi-Fi networks in the environment. One would have been motivated to do so because: (1) Jang teaches that displaying detected network identifiers and allowing the user to select a preferred network is a known method for configuring a device to join a specific network (Jang: par. 0102), which ensures the device connects to the correct network intended by the user; (2) In deployment environments where multiple Wi-Fi networks are present (e.g., apartment buildings, office complexes), user selection ensures the security gateway connects to the user's own ISP router rather than a neighbor's or other unintended network.
Regarding claim 12, claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm (“Boehm,” US 2004/0085944) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA,” US 2025/0219995, pars. [0005]-[0006], FIG. 1), and further in view of Barel et al. (“Barel,” US 2026/0039692)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Boehm and AAPA teaches the network security device of claim 1. The combination of Boehm and AAPA further teaches (a) monitoring the network traffic between the WAN interface module and the LAN interface module to detect at least one event (Boehm: par. 0022, teaches that the wireless security gateway provides "routing, filtering... firewall" services and acts as a barrier protecting the LAN from the external network. Under BRI, a firewall that performs filtering inherently monitors network traffic passing between its WAN-side interface (connected to the external network) and its LAN-side interface (connected to local devices) to detect events such as unauthorized connection attempts, policy violations, or suspicious packets that trigger filtering rules) but does not explicitly disclose
determining whether the at least one event is associated with a predefined list provided by a user or third-party entities; and blocking the network traffic corresponding to the event if the event is associated with the predefined list.
However, in an analogous art, Barel discloses
monitoring the network traffic between the WAN interface module and the LAN interface module to detect at least one event (Barel: par. 0021, The cybersecurity monitoring and protection can include firewall, intrusion detection and prevention Uniform Resource Locator (URL) filtering, content filtering, bandwidth control, Domain Name System (DNS) filtering, protection against advanced threat (malware, spam, CrossSite Scripting (XSS), phishing, etc.), data protection, sandboxing, antivirus, and any other security technique. Any of these functionalities can be implemented through any of the network configurations 100A, 100B, l00C. A firewall can provide Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and access controls across various ports and protocols as well as being application and user aware. The URL filtering can block, allow, or limit website access based on policy for a user, group of users, or entire organization, including specific destinations or categories of URLs (e.g., gambling, social media, etc.). The bandwidth control can enforce bandwidth policies and prioritize critical applications such as relative to recreation all traffic. DNS filtering can control and block DNS requests against known and malicious destinations; par. 0022, The intrusion prevention and advanced threat protection can deliver full threat protection against malicious content such as browser exploits, scripts, identified botnets and malware callbacks, etc. The sandbox can block zero-day exploits Gust identified) by analyzing unknown files for malicious behavior. The antivirus protection can include antivirus, antispyware, antimalware, etc. protection for the endpoints 102, using signatures sourced and constantly updated. The DNS security can identify and route command-and-control connections to threat detection engines for full content inspection. The DLP can use standard and/or custom dictionaries to continuously monitor the endpoints 102, including compressed and/or Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)-encrypted traffic.);
determining whether the at least one event is associated with a predefined list provided by a user or third-party entities (Barel: pars. 0021-0022, par. 0021, Barel teaches URL filtering that "can block, allow, or limit website access based on policy for a user, group of users, or entire organization, including specific destinations or categories of URLs (e.g., gambling, social media, etc.)"; par. 0022, Barel further teaches antivirus protection "using signatures sourced and constantly updated"); and
blocking the network traffic corresponding to the event if the event is associated with the predefined list (Barel: pars. 0021-0022, par. 0021, Barel teaches that URL filtering can "block" website access based on policy; par. 0021, DNS filtering can "control and block DNS requests against known and malicious destinations"; par. 0022, Barel teaches that antivirus protection provides "antivirus, antispyware, antimalware, etc. protection for the endpoints").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barel with the method and system of Boehm and AAPA to include determining whether the at least one event is associated with a predefined list provided by a user or third-party entities; and blocking the network traffic corresponding to the event if the event is associated with the predefined list. One would have been motivated to incorporate predefined list-based traffic monitoring and blocking as taught by Barel, because Barel teaches that monitoring net traffic for events and comparing detect events against predefined list including URL category lists, DNS blocklists of known malicious destinations, and constantly updated antivirus signatures is a standard and well-known approach for cybersecurity monitoring and protection (Barel: pars. [0021]-[0022]). Utilizing predefined lists from users and third-party threat intelligence sources would enhance Boehm's gateway by enabling it to leverage continuously updated threat information to detect and block known malicious traffic, providing more comprehensive protection than static firewall rules alone. This represents the predictable use of known security techniques to strengthen an existing security device. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Boehm, AAPA, and Barel teaches the network security device of claim 5. The combination of Boehm, AAPA, and Barel further discloses, wherein the predefined lists comprise at least one domain name associated with known malicious sources, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, or IP addresses from countries selected by the user or third-party entities as blocked (Barel: par. 0021, DNS filtering can control and block DNS requests against known and malicious destinations).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Boehm and AAPA teaches the network security device of claim 1. The combination of Boehm and AAPA teaches, wherein the network security device comprises a security layer that blocks the unauthorized network traffic (Boehm: par. 0022, "routing, filtering, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), NAT... firewall" services and acts as a barrier protecting the LAN from the external network.), and wherein the security layer comprises a firewall module (Boehm: par. 0022, Boehm teaches "firewall" as one of the services provided by the wireless security gateway) but does not explicitly disclose “the network security device comprises a security layer that blocks the unauthorized network traffic, wherein the security layer comprises a firewall and intrusion detection module, a Domain Name System (DNS) security module, and a web filtering and malware protection module.”
However, in an analogous art, Barel discloses
“the network security device comprises a security layer that blocks the unauthorized network traffic, wherein the security layer comprises a firewall and intrusion detection module, a Domain Name System (DNS) security module, and a web filtering and malware protection module.” (Barel: par. 0021, The cybersecurity monitoring and protection can include firewall, intrusion detection and prevention,against known and malicious destinations; par. 0022, The intrusion prevention and advanced threat protection can deliver full threat protection against malicious content such as browser exploits, scripts, identified botnets and malware callbacks, etc. The sandbox can block zero-day exploits Gust identified) by analyzing unknown files for malicious behavior. The antivirus protection can include antivirus, antispyware, antimalware, etc. protection for the endpoints 102, using signatures sourced and constantly updated. The DNS security can identify and route command-and-control connections to threat detection engines for full content inspection. The DLP can use standard and/or custom dictionaries to continuously monitor the endpoints 102, including compressed and/or Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)-encrypted traffic.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barel with the method and system of Boehm and AAPA to include “the network security device comprises a security layer that blocks the unauthorized network traffic, wherein the security layer comprises a firewall and intrusion detection module, a Domain Name System (DNS) security module, and a web filtering and malware protection module.” One would have been motivated to provide standard components of cybersecurity monitoring and protection for network-connected endpoints (Barel: pars. [0021]-[0022]). Incorporating these well-known security modules into Boehm's gateway would provide comprehensive, multi-layered defense against diverse threat vectors including network intrusions, malicious domain access, dangerous web content, and malware — consistent with the predictable use of known security techniques to achieve predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Additionally, Boehm already implements a firewall (par. [0022]), making the addition of complementary security modules such as IDS, DNS security, and web/malware filtering a natural and predictable enhancement to strengthen the existing security capabilities of the gateway device.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Boehm, AAPA, and Barel teaches the network security device of claim 6. The combination of Boehm, AAPA, and Barel further discloses wherein the set of instructions further comprises: updating the predefined lists dynamically at a predefined time (Barel: par. 0022, antivirus protection can include antivirus, antispyware, antimalware, etc. protection for the endpoints 102, using signatures sourced and constantly updated).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANH LE whose telephone number is (571)270-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 6:00AM to 3:30PM other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luu Pham, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Canh Le/
Examiner, Art Unit 2439
February 20th, 2026
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439