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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the matching criteria of Sharma, are attributes of individual entries used and are not “based on rules within a rule set”. Applicant argues that individual entries with varied criteria do not constitute a first type rule set and a second rule set.
With respect, Examiner asserts that the Applicant lists in the independent claims, alone and without context, the terms “first feature”, “second feature”, “first rule set”, “second rule set”, “first rule” and “second rule”. Examiner may not bring in details of the instant specification into the claims as stated. Examiner must read the claims with a broad but reasonable interpretation. There is no limit or specifying what constitutes a “rule set” for example. Examiner may use a reference and use what is reasonable for a “rule set”.
Applicant argues that Sharma fails to teach the claims as listed because Sharma has an “attribute of individual entries used for matching, and that these are not features that are obtained based on rules withing a rule set”.
Examiner, on the contrary, reads the attributes of Sharma as features, because there is no context in the claim to say otherwise. Sharma teaches different ACL entries, plural. Sharma teaches rule sets/ACLs include IP addresses, and MAC addresses and protocol types. Sharma teaches matching an IP address “feature” of packets and retrieving said feature of ACL in order to apply to the rule to a packet. If an ACL is considered a “first type rule set” then each ACL contains a “first rule set” (IP address) and a “second rule set” (MAC address). The first rule set is different from the second rule set. The reference in question (Sharma) does not need to explicitly state the organizational system of these rules, types, and sets. The reference reads on the claim limitations as listed and interpreted.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner has included Hollingshead US 2017/0208094 to meet the claims 9, and 18 as amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharma US 9,432,294.
As per claims 1, 10, 19, 20 (Currently Amended) Sharma teaches A rule searching method, comprising: obtaining a first feature of a first packet; (Column 10 lines 6-20) (Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (teaches parsing packet fields to find IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc)
Sharma teaches determining a second feature matching the first feature, wherein the second feature is obtained based on at least one first access control rule comprised in a first rule set ) (Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (Column 6 lines 45-60) (teaches parsing packet fields to find IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc, matching said feature to an ACL rule and applying said ACL Rule.)
Sharma teaches the second feature is one or more of features corresponding to a first type rule set.
(Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (Column 6 lines 45-60) (teaches parsing packet fields to find IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc, matching said feature to an ACL rule and applying said ACL Rule.)
Sharma teaches the first type rule set comprises the first rule set and a second rule set the first rule set comprises at least one first access control rule the second rule set comprises at least one second access control rule and (Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (Column 6 lines 45-60) (teaches parsing packet fields to find IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc, matching said feature to an ACL rule and applying said ACL Rule, the first rule being matching for example an IP address, the second rule for example being filtered based on a MAC address)
Sharma teaches the at least one first access control rule is different from the at least one second access control rule; (Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (Column 6 lines 45-60) (teaches parsing packet fields to find IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc, matching said feature to an ACL rule and applying said ACL Rule, the first rule being matching for example an IP address, the second rule for example being filtered based on a MAC address)
Sharma teaches and searching the at least one first access control rule for a target rule matching the first packet. (Column 9 line 65 to Column 10 line 18) (teaches matching ACL rules to packet identifiers)
As per claims 2, 11, (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, Sharma teaches wherein before the determining the second feature matching the first feature, the method further comprises: obtaining a common feature corresponding to the at least one first access control rule comprised in the first rule set; using the common feature as the second feature; and wherein the obtaining the first feature of the first packet further comprises: extracting a first field that is in the first packet and that corresponds to the common feature; and using information about the first field as the first feature of the first packet. (Column 10 lines 6-20) (Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (teaches parsing packet fields to find the common features IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc)
As per claims 3, 12, (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 2, Sharma teaches wherein the obtaining the common feature corresponding to the at least one first access control rule comprised in the first rule set comprises: extracting a same field of each of the at least one first access control rule comprised in the first rule set and determining information about the same field as the common feature corresponding to the at least one first access control rule comprised in the first rule set. (Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (Column 6 lines 45-60) (teaches parsing packet fields to find IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc, matching said feature to an ACL rule and applying said ACL Rule.)
As per claims 6, 15, (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, Sharma teaches wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a third feature of a second packet; determining, in a process of searching for the target rule corresponding to the first packet, a fourth feature matching the third feature, wherein the fourth feature is obtained based on a third access control rule comprised in a third rule set; the fourth feature is one or more of features corresponding to a second type rule set; the second type rule set comprises the third rule set and a fourth rule set; the third rule set comprises at least one third access control rule; the fourth rule set comprises at least one fourth access control rule; and the at least one third access control rule is different from the at least one fourth access control rule; and searching the at least one third access control rule for a target rule matching the second packet. Sharma teaches multiple rule sets based on different features and searching for target rules matching packets for proper procedure. Sharma teaches multiple ACL rules based on different user policies (Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (Column 6 lines 45-60) (teaches parsing packet fields to find IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc, matching said feature to an ACL rule and applying said ACL Rule, the first rule being matching for example an IP address, the second rule for example being filtered based on a MAC address)
As per claims 8, 17 (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 6, Sharma teaches wherein the second type rule set and the first type rule set are a same rule set; and the searching the at least one first access control rule for the target rule matching the first packet comprises: selecting, on a basis that a quantity of first rule sets is greater than a first quantity, the first quantity of first rule sets from a plurality of first rule sets, wherein the first quantity is determined based on a quantity of rule sets comprised in the first type rule set; and sequentially searching, based on the first quantity, the at least one first access control rules comprised in the plurality of first rule sets for the target rule matching the first packet. (Sharma teaches multiple rule sets based on different features and searching for target rules matching packets for proper procedure. Sharma teaches multiple ACL rules based on different user policies) (Column 5 line 63 to Column 6 line 15) (Column 6 lines 45-60) (teaches parsing packet fields to find IP address, MAC address, protocol, etc, matching said feature to an ACL rule and applying said ACL Rule, the first rule being matching for example an IP address, the second rule for example being filtered based on a MAC address)
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 13, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma US 9,432,294 in view of Anand US 11,228,603
As per claims 4, 13, (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1,
Sharma does not teach the following:
Anand teaches wherein before the determining the second feature matching matches the first feature, the method further comprises: obtaining target content corresponding to the at least one first access control rule comprised in the first rule set; mapping the target content to obtain a mapping value using the mapping value as the second feature, wherein the target content is all or a part of content of the first access control rule; and the obtaining the first feature of the first packet further comprises: extracting a second field that is in the first packet and that corresponds to the target content-;mapping a value of the second field; and using an obtained mapping value as the first feature of the first packet. (Column 5 line 33 to Column 6 line 27) (teaches packet filtering including an ACL using a 5 tuple and including an application identifier or signature; thus mapping application/content to access control rules in conjunction with IP address, etc in order to determine permission of network traffic or to deny network traffic; teaches multiple firewall policies)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the teaching of Anand with the prior art because it allows more specific access control and improves security.
As per claims 7, 16 (Original) The method according to claim 6, Anand teaches wherein the second type rule set and the first type rule set are different rule sets. (Column 5 line 33 to Column 6 line 27) (teaches packet filtering including an ACL in order to determine permission of network traffic or to deny network traffic; teaches multiple firewall policies/ rule sets)
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma US 9,432,294 in view of Anand US 11,228,603 in view of Hollingshead US 2017/0208094
As per claims 9, 18 (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, Anand teaches wherein before the determining the second feature matching the first feature, the method further comprises: obtaining a plurality of initial access control rules; and dividing different initial access control rules into a corresponding rule set based on a similarity between the plurality of initial access control rules and a quantity of rule sets, to obtain the first type rule set. (Column 5 line 33 to Column 6 line 27) (teaches packet filtering including an ACL in order to determine permission of network traffic or to deny network traffic; teaches multiple firewall policies/ rule sets)
Hollingshead teaches dividing access control rules into sets based on a similarity between character codes and a quantity of rule sets, to obtain a first type rule set wherein an inititial access control rule having a similarity higher than a similarity threshold is grouped into a same rule set and the similarity threshold determined based on the quantity of rule sets and a quantity of the plurality of initial access control rules. [0040][0056][0062][0064] (teaches creating clocks of rules or “sets” including comparing ACL rules to cluster them, comparing code, and the threshold based on quantity of rules and rule sets)
It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective priority date of the current application to use the teaching of Hollingshead with the prior art because it is more efficient.
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma US 9,432,294 in view of Wang US 20220070102
As per claims 5, 14 (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1,
Sharma fails to teach the following:
Wang teaches wherein the searching the at least one first access control rule for the target rule matching the first packet comprises: determining, in the at least one first access control rule comprised in the first rule set, a reference rule matching the first packet; and determining, when there are a plurality of reference rules matching the first packet, a highest priority reference rule in the plurality of reference rules as the target rule. [0051] (teaches a priority of ACL rules where the highest priority rule is applied)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to use the teaching of Wang with Sharma because it more effectively implements an access control list.
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 CHRISTOPHER BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights