DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 2/13/2025 has been considered by the Examiner with the exception of all the NPL citations as copies of the NPL citations are not in the file wrapper. The IDS filed 5/27/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2017/0187733 to Ahn et al. (hereinafter Ahn) in view of US2021/0258350 to Buck.
As to claim 1, Ahn teaches:
a. A server (Ahn, [0013]).
b. A packet filtering device (packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0015]).
c. The server configured to:
i. Receive, from one or more threat intelligence providers, threat intelligence reports comprising one or more domains associated with malicious activity (threat-intelligence reports including domain names and internet addresses are received) (Ahn, [0018]).
ii. Query a domain name service (DNS) to determine whether each domain, of the one or more domains associated with malicious activity (DNS query, threat indicators are used in the DNS query) (Ahn, [0019]).
Ahn does not expressly mention an eSNI value. However, in an analogous art, Buck teaches supports receiving an encrypted server name indication (eSNI) value (DNS query is used to detect if SNI or eSNI is supported in the DNS) (Buck, [0052]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been motivated to implement the secure network connections with the employment of eSNI of Buck in order to enhance the network connections security as suggested by Buck (Buck, [0001]).
Ahn as modified further teaches:
iii. Based on a determination that a first domain supports receiving an eSNI value, create an entry in a data structure, wherein the entry comprises at least one internet protocol address associated with the first domain (logs are kept of the communication sessions including making entries in a log including the information about the packets destination) (Ahn, [0019]).
iv. Create, based on one or more entries in the data structure, one or more policies comprising a plurality of packet filtering rules (rules generated based on the threat indicators) (Ahn, [0018]).
v. Send, to the packet filtering device, the one or more policies and the data structure (packet filtering rules are sent the rule gate (part of the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0018]).
d. The packet filtering device configured to:
i. Receive the one or more policies and the data structure (packet filtering rules are received by the rule gate (part of the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0018]).
ii. Receive, from a first device, a plurality of encrypted packets, wherein the plurality of encrypted packets comprises a destination address (receiving packets to be processed by the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0015]).
iii. Determine whether the destination address matches an address in the data structure (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet or send the packet to the destination) (Ahn, [0028]). It is noted that the DNS system would not process an address unless it can be resolved.
iv. Based on a determination that the destination address matches an address in the data structure, decrypt, by a proxy function, the plurality of encrypted packets to obtain a plurality of cleartext packets (packets decrypted by a proxy device) (Ahn, [0037]).
v. Store, in accordance with the one or more policies, the plurality of cleartext packets in a data base (packets are stored in logs to be used in future determinations) (Ahn, [0032]).
vi. Send, in accordance with the one or more policies, the plurality of encrypted packets to the destination address (packets are only sent when all of the rules have been satisfied) (Buck, [0039]).
As to claim 2, Ahn as modified teaches the server is configured to create, based on one or more entries in the data structure, one or more packet filtering rules of the plurality of packet filtering rules (ICAP server receives rules from the rule providers) (Ahn, [0014]).
As to claim 3, Ahn as modified teaches the server is further configured to query, based on a determination that a second domain does not support receiving an eSNI value, a domain name service (DNS) to determine whether a third domain of the one or more domains, supports receiving an eSNI value, where an entry for the second domain is not created in the data structure (DNS query is used to detect if SNI or eSNI is supported in the DNS and uses pre-fetched associated domains if the initial domain cannot be resolved) (Buck, [0052 and 0055])) and (packets are only logged if get past the packet filtering system otherwise they are dropped and never reach the destination behind the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0061]).
As to claim 4, Ahn as modified teaches the packet filtering device is configured to:
a. Receive a second plurality of encrypted packets, wherein the second plurality of encrypted packets comprises a second destination address corresponding to the second domain (receiving packets to be processed by the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0015]).
b. Determine whether the second destination address matches an address in the data structure (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet if the destination address is associated with malicious activity) (Ahn, [0028]).
c. Based on a determination that the second destination address does not match an address in the data structure, send, in accordance with the one or more policies, the second plurality of encrypted packets to the second destination address (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet if the destination address is associated with malicious activity) (Ahn, [0028]). Ahn as modified does not just apply to a single plurality of packets.
As to claim 5, Ahn as modified teaches wherein the one or more threat intelligence providers comprises at least one of: a cyber threat intelligence provider, a law enforcement intelligence provider, or a protection and preservation intelligence provider (Ahn, [0018]).
As to claim 6, Ahn as modified teaches the plurality of encrypted packets:
a. Is associated with establishing a secure communication channel (establishing a secure connection) (Buck, [0066]).
b. Comprises at least one of a ClientHello message or one or more handshake messages (client hello message) (Ahn, [0034]).
As to claim 7, Ahn as modified teaches the packet filtering device is configured to:
a. Receive a second plurality of encrypted packets, wherein the second plurality of encrypted packets comprises a second address (receiving packets to be processed by the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0015]).
b. Determine whether the second destination address matches an address in the data structure (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet or send the packet to the destination) (Ahn, [0028]).
c. Based on a determination that the second destination address matches an address in the data structure, block, in accordance with the one or more policies, the second plurality of encrypted packets (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet or send the packet to the destination) (Ahn, [0028]).
Ahn as modified does not just apply to a single plurality of packets.
As to claim 8, Ahn teaches:
a. A server (Ahn, [0013]).
b. One or more processors and memory storing instructions that (Ahn, [0015]), when executed by the one or more processors cause the server to:
i. Receive, from one or more threat intelligence providers, threat intelligence reports comprising one or more domains associated with malicious activity (threat-intelligence reports including domain names are transmitted to the user) (Ahn, [0018]).
ii. Query a domain name service (DNS) to determine whether each domain, of the one or more domains associated with malicious activity, (DNS query, threat indicators are used in the DNS query) (Ahn, [0019]).
Ahn does not expressly mention an eSNI value. However, in an analogous art, Buck teaches supports receiving an encrypted server name indication (eSNI) value (DNS query is used to detect if SNI or eSNI is supported in the DNS) (Buck, [0052]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been motivated to implement the secure network connections with the employment of eSNI of Buck in order to enhance the network connections security as suggested by Buck (Buck, [0001]).
Ahn as modified further teaches supports receiving an encrypted server name indication (eSNI) value
iii. Based on a determination that a first domain supports receiving an eSNI value, create an entry in a data structure, wherein the entry comprises at least one internet protocol address associated with the first domain (logs are kept of the communication sessions including making entries in a log including the information about the packets destination) (Ahn, [0019]).
iv. Create, based on one or more entries in the data structure, one or more policies comprising a plurality of packet filtering rules (rules generated based on the threat indicators) (Ahn, [0018]).
v. Send, to the packet filtering device, the one or more policies and the data structure (packets are only sent when all of the rules have been satisfied) (Buck, [0039]).
As to claim 9, Ahn as modified teaches send, to the one or more packet filtering devices, the data structure (log data with entries that satisfy the rules (addresses, headers…) (Ahn, [0019]).
As to claim 10, Ahn as modified teaches create, based on one or more entries in the data structure, one or more packet filtering rules of the plurality of packet filtering rules (rules generated based on the threat indicators and other entries about the packet) (Ahn, [0018-0019]).
As to claim 11, Ahn as modified teaches query, based on a determination that a second domain does not support receiving an eSNI value, a domain name service (DNS) to determine whether a third domain of the one or more domains, supports receiving an eSNI value (DNS query is used to detect if SNI or eSNI is supported in the DNS and uses pre-fetched associated domains if the initial domain cannot be resolved) (Buck, [0052 and 0055])).
As to claim 12, Ahn as modified teaches an entry for the second domain is not created in the data structure (packets are only logged if get past the packet filtering system otherwise they are dropped and never reach the destination behind the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0061]).
As to claim 13, Ahn as modified teaches wherein the one or more threat intelligence providers comprises at least one of: a cyber threat intelligence provider, a law enforcement intelligence provider, or a protection and preservation intelligence provider (Ahn, [0018]).
As to claim 14, Ahn as modified teaches at least one of the packet filtering device, of the one or more packet filtering devices, resides at a boundary and interfaces between a protected network and an unprotected network (The packet filtering system is the gateway to the domain. All packets are processed and they are either allowed or dropped.) (Ahn, [0018 and 0028]).
As to claim 15, Ahn teaches:
a. One or more processors and memory storing instructions that (Ahn, [0015]), when executed by the one or more processors cause the packet filtering device to:
i. Receive, from a server external to the network protected by the packet filtering device, one or more policies and the data structure comprising a plurality of packet filtering rules, wherein the one or more policies are based on intelligence data received from one or more threat intelligence providers (packet filtering rules come from threat-intelligence providers) (Ahn, [0018])
ii. Receive, from the server, a data structure comprising a plurality or entries, wherein each entry, of the plurality of entries, comprises at least one internet protocol address associated with a domain associated with malicious activity (threat-intelligence reports including domain names and internet addresses of potentially malicious actors are received) (Ahn, [0018]).
iii. Receive, from a first device, a plurality of encrypted packets, wherein the plurality of encrypted packets comprises a destination address (receiving packets to be processed by the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0015]).
iv. Determine whether the destination address matches an address in the data structure (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet or send the packet to the destination) (Ahn, [0028]). It is noted that the DNS system would not process an address unless it can be resolved.
iv. Based on a determination that the destination address matches an address in the data structure, decrypt, by a proxy function, the plurality of encrypted packets to obtain a plurality of cleartext packets (packets decrypted by a proxy device) (Ahn, [0037]).
v. Store, in accordance with the one or more policies, the plurality of cleartext packets in a data base (packets are stored in logs to be used in future determinations) (Ahn, [0032]).
It is implied that Ahn sends packets associated with the policies, but it is not explicitly recited. However, in an analogous art, Buck teaches:
vi. Send, in accordance with the one or more policies, the plurality of encrypted packets to the destination address (packets are only sent when all of the rules have been satisfied) (Buck, [0039]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been motivated to implement the secure network connections with sending of packets according to the rules/policies of Buck in order to enhance the network connections security as suggested by Buck (Buck, [0001]).
As to claim 16, Ahn as modified teaches cause the packet filtering device to store the plurality of cleartext packets in the database based on a user identifier corresponding to one or more user identifiers indicated in the one or more policies (packets are stored in logs to be used in future determinations and metadata for the logs include addresses of the source) (Ahn, [0019 and 0032]).
As to claim 17, Ahn as modified teaches cause the packet filtering device to store the plurality of cleartext packets in the database based on a host identifier corresponding to one or more host identifiers indicated in the one or more policies (packets are stored in logs to be used in future determinations and metadata for the logs include addresses of the destination) (Ahn, [0019 and 0032]).
As to claim 18, Ahn as modified teaches cause the packet filtering device:
a. Receive a second plurality of encrypted packets, wherein the second plurality of encrypted packets comprises a second destination address (receiving packets to be processed by the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0015]).
b. Determine whether the second destination address matches an address in the data structure (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet or send the packet to the destination) (Ahn, [0028]).
c. Based on a determination that the second destination address does not match an address in the data structure, send, in accordance with the one or more policies, the second plurality of encrypted packets to the second destination address (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet or send the packet to the destination) (Ahn, [0028]).
Ahn as modified does not just apply to a single plurality of packets.
As to claim 19, Ahn as modified teaches cause the packet filtering device:
a. Receive a second plurality of encrypted packets, wherein the second plurality of encrypted packets comprises a second destination address (receiving packets to be processed by the packet filtering system) (Ahn, [0015]).
b. Determine whether the second destination address matches an address in the data structure (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet or send the packet to the destination) (Ahn, [0028]).
c. Based on a determination that the second destination address matches an address in the data structure, block, in accordance with the one or more policies, the second plurality of encrypted packets to the second destination address (addresses are processed by the rule gate and determine if they match threat indicators to either drop the packet or send the packet to the destination) (Ahn, [0028]).
As to claim 20, Ahn as modified teaches the plurality of encrypted packets is associated with establishing a secure communication channel and comprises at least one of a ClientHello message or one or more handshake messages (client hello message) (Ahn, [0034]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,871. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are substantially similar to the limitations of the patented case. The main difference is that the patent includes limitations relating to law enforcement which would allow law enforcement to intercept packets. This is viewed as an intended use for patent and removing law enforcement limitations would not materially affect the operation of the patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S POWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:30.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/WILLIAM S POWERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights