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
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 06/26/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to arguments
In light of applicant amendments, the 112 rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 USC § 102 arguments
The first argument is not persuasive, the claims need to show how the “a unique identifier that is distinct” because even the applicant specifications summarized in applicant figs. 4A-4B show the identifiers comprise username and password or email address or user ID which the examiner mapped in the office action.
The second argument is partially persuasive because while the prior art does not explicitly disclose established binding it can be understood from reading the prior art that there is a bind between the client and the proxy server; however, for the sake of advancing compact prosecution the examiner brings in a secondary reference that explicitly disclose the missing elements and remedies any deficiencies in the prior art Feng as mapped in the office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20090178106 A1) hereinafter referred to as Feng in view of Gavrilov et al. (US 20050228981 A1) hereinafter referred to as Gavrilov.
With respect to claim 1, Feng discloses: A method for a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP), the method comprising: receiving, by an LDAP server from one or more LDAP clients, one or more LDAP bind requests to establish one or more binding connections between the LDAP server and the one or more LDAP clients; (Feng ¶110 “an LDAP client provides a bind distinguished name and a bind password to the LDAP server for authentication.”).
wherein each of the one or more LDAP bind requests identifies corresponding authentication information; (Feng ¶110 “an LDAP client provides [establishing] a bind distinguished name and a bind password [unique identifier of each client] to the LDAP server for authentication.”).
establishing, by the LDAP server, the one or more binding connections with the one or more LDAP clients according to the one or more LDAP bind requests, wherein the one or more LDAP clients are associated with one or more unique identifiers, each corresponding to an LDAP client; (Feng ¶110 “an LDAP client provides [establishing] a bind distinguished name and a bind password [unique identifier of each client] to the LDAP server for authentication.”).
wherein each of the one or more unique identifiers are distinct from corresponding authentication information identified in the one or more LDAP bind requests received from the one or more LDAP clients; (it is interpreted that the received username and password and unique for each one therefore they are implicitly distinct from other stored authentication information that might belong to other clients).
receiving, by the LDAP server, an LDAP request for an LDAP operation, wherein the LDAP request includes a first identifier of the one or more unique identifiers, the first identifier corresponding to the first LDAP client; (Feng ¶110 teaches received requests comprise unique identifier and ¶111, Fig. 13, explains “proxy server receives the bind request, the proxy server determines the effective password policy for the target client (step 1304) as described in the process in FIG. 11. The proxy server also performs a compare request on the password supplied from the client to the passwords stored in the password directory.”)
associating, by the LDAP server, the LDAP operation with the first LDAP client based on comparing the first identifier with the one or more unique identifiers associated with the one or more LDAP clients; (Feng ¶111-112 “The proxy server also performs a compare request on the password supplied from the client to the passwords stored in the password directory.” And associating the received password with stored password to identify the client).
and performing the LDAP operation for the first LDAP client according to the LDAP request. (Feng ¶111-113 disclose performing requested LDAP operation(s)).
Feng does not explicitly disclose: “established binding connection” in the limitation “receiving, by the LDAP server via an established binding connection to a first LDAP client of the one or more LDAP clients, an LDAP request for an LDAP operation”
However, Gavrilov in an analogous art discloses: receiving, by the LDAP server via an established binding connection to a first LDAP client of the one or more LDAP clients, an LDAP request for an LDAP operation (Gavrilov ¶89 “Client application 92 may request access to application directory service agent 26 [in LDAP server] via the established LDAP session [established binding connection] by making one or more LDAP bind calls [LDAP request] to application directory service agent 26, although access may be requested in other ways. For instance, client application 92 may make one or more simple LDAP bind calls passing in the established session reference”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LDAP request disclosed by Feng with having an established binding connection as disclosed by Gavrilov to ensure secure connection is established between a server and client (see Gavrilov Abstract, summary and ¶89).
Claims 8 and 15 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium and system respectively, while the claims might have slight changes in language but they recite the same matter and therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, Feng in view of Gavrilov disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more LDAP bind requests includes a unique identifier corresponding to each of the one or more LDAP clients. (Feng ¶110 “an LDAP client provides a bind distinguished name and a bind password [unique identifier] to the LDAP server for authentication.”).
Claims 10 and 17 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium and system respectively, while the claims might have slight changes in language but they recite the same matter and therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to claim 6, Feng in view of Gavrilov disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the LDAP operation comprises at least one of: UnbindRequest, SearchRequest, ModifyRequest, AddRequest, DelRequest, CompareRequest, AbandonRequest, or ExtendedRequest. (Feng ¶52 teaches at least one of the modify request when reciting “when the user requests a simple bind to the proxy server, (2) when a user is added to the system, (3) when a bound user requests to modify the bound user's password”).
Claims 13 and 20 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium and system respectively, while the claims might have slight changes in language but they recite the same matter and therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, Feng in view of Gavrilov disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more LDAP bind requests is a simple bind request. (Feng ¶23 “FIG. 13 illustrates a flowchart of a process for password policy enforcement on a simple bind connection in a distributed directory when password policies are distributed in accordance with the illustrative embodiments;”)
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, while the claim might have slight changes in language but it recites the same matter and therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Gavrilov as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of Ravishankar et al. (US 20230269780 A1) hereinafter referred to as Ravishankar.
With respect to claim 2, Feng in view of Gavrilov disclose: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Feng does not explicitly disclose: identifying an issue associated with the first LDAP client; and upon identification of the issue associated with the first LDAP client, reconstructing a history of LDAP operations associated with the first LDAP client by performing a search of past LDAP operations using the first identifier corresponding to the first LDAP client.
However, Ravishankar in an analogous art discloses: identifying an issue associated with the first LDAP client; and upon identification of the issue associated with the first LDAP client, reconstructing a history of LDAP operations associated with the first LDAP client by performing a search of past LDAP operations using the first identifier corresponding to the first LDAP client. (Ravishankar ¶134-135 “The LDAP servers (932, 948) may perform the functions including, but not limited to, coordinate with central active directories to receive and synchronize operations users [comprising user identifier(s)] and their role definitions, interface with LDAP clients in each of the nodes to receive LDAP bind authentication requests … The log/debug servers (938, 946) may perform the functions including, but not limited to, receive component diagnostics logs and traces from components in different formats, convert these logs into the searchable database [reconstructing a history of LDAP operations associated with the first LDAP client and allow a search of past LDAP operations], and provide visualization and filtering tools to facilitate debugging.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng with identifying an issue associated with the first LDAP client; and upon identification of the issue associated with the first LDAP client, reconstructing a history of LDAP operations associated with the first LDAP client by performing a search of past LDAP operations using the first identifier corresponding to the first LDAP client as disclosed by Ravishankar to allow for debugging of clients (see Ravishankar ¶134-135).
Claims 9 and 16 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium and system respectively, while the claims might have slight changes in language but they recite the same matter and therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Gavrilov as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of Tyhurst et al. (US 20090300137 A1) hereinafter referred to as Tyhurst.
With respect to claim 4, Feng in view of Gavrilov disclose: The method of claim 3,
Feng does not explicitly disclose: wherein the unique identifier comprises an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) of each of the one or more LDAP clients.
However, Tyhurst in an analogous art discloses: wherein the unique identifier comprises an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) of each of the one or more LDAP clients. (Tyhurst ¶72 teaches using IMEI as device identifier and ¶92 discloses using device identifier in service comprising LDAP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng wherein the unique identifier comprises an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) of each of the one or more LDAP clients as taught by Tyhurst which is a commonly known unique identifier for a mobile device in the art (see Tyhurst ¶72).
Claims 11 and 18 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium and system respectively, while the claims might have slight changes in language but they recite the same matter and therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Gavrilov as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of Shrader et al. (US 6374359 B1) hereinafter referred to as Shrader.
With respect to claim 5, Feng in view of Gavrilov disclose: The method of claim 1,
Feng does not explicitly disclose: further comprising: assigning, by the LDAP server, a unique identifier for each of the one or more LDAP clients; and transmitting, by the LDAP server and to each LDAP client of the one or more LDAP clients, a corresponding unique identifier in an LDAP bind response upon establishing a binding connection with the LDAP client.
However, Shrader in an analogous art discloses: further comprising: assigning, by the LDAP server, a unique identifier for each of the one or more LDAP clients; and transmitting, by the LDAP server, the unique identifier in an LDAP bind response to an LDAP client upon establishing a binding connection with the LDAP client. (Shrader 4:25-35 after receiving username and password interpreted [binding request] the request is validated, and based upon that, the web server LDAP GUI sends back a cookie [unique identifier] to each client to establish a connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng with further comprising: assigning, by the LDAP server, a unique identifier for each of the one or more LDAP clients; and transmitting, by the LDAP server, the unique identifier in an LDAP bind response to an LDAP client upon establishing a binding connection with the LDAP client as taught by Shrader to have a unique cookie identifier for each client (see Shrader 4:25-35).
Claims 12 and 19 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium and system respectively, while the claims might have slight changes in language but they recite the same matter and therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 5.
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 HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights