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
Currently pending claims are 1 – 20.
Claim Objection
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities (and Examiner respectfully request to correct as follows): “a processing resource” should be replaced with “a hardware processing resource” or “a processing device” – Examiner notes this is because a computer processor (or processing resource) could be a software processor (e.g. a Microsoft WORD processor). Appropriate correction(s) is (are) required. // “A computer processor” may include the “software processor” (e.g. a word processor) //
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory (or provisional) 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. See 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); and 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 – 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of (or provisional) obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,757,888. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other – accordingly, because the listed claims of U.S. Patent virtually contain(s) every element of the listed claims of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claim(s) of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001)”.
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 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albert et al. (U.S. Patent 7,546,629) – (besides: incl. Incorporated-by-Reference by Freund (U.S. Patent 8,200,818) (see Albert: Col. 1 Line 13 – 16)).
As per claim 1, 11 & 20, Albert teaches a method for focused development of a zero trust network access policy, the method comprising:
accessing, by a processing resource, a focus list, wherein the focus list identifies at least one network element (Albert: Col. 10 Line 23 – 28 / Line 42 – 47 and Col. 9 Line 14 – 22: accessing a focus list as a list of multiple security policies (i.e. an access control list) to arbitrate and select an instant active security rule (policy), wherein a particular application, included in the focus list as a network focus, accessing an internet as one type of network element (Col. 10 Line 23 – 28) to yield a first set (type) of network communication traffic) – this is also consistent with the disclosure of the instant specification (SPEC-PG.PUB: Para [0138] Line 2 – 5));
monitoring, by the processing resource, network activity to yield a set of network traffic (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 23 – 28 / Line 42 – 47 and Col. 9 Line 14 – 22: monitoring / identifying a particular application, included in the focus list as a network focus, accessing an internet as one type of network element (Col. 10 Line 23 – 28) to yield a first set (type) of network communication traffic);
identifying, by the processing resource, a set of workloads in the set of network traffic that are either sourced from any of at least one network focus, or destined to any of the at least one network element (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 23 – 28 / Line 42 – 47 and Col. 9 Line 14 – 22: identifying a set of workloads in a set of network traffic that includes, at least, (a) sourced from a particular application, as a network focus, destined to an internet (Col. 10 Line 23 – 28), or (b) a device, as a network focus, connects to different networks or resources (e.g. different file sharing rules w.r.t. different trusted zones (groups)) (Col. 9 Line 11 – 13 / Line 55 – 61)); and
augmenting, by the processing resource, an access control list to include one or more workload rules allowing the set of workloads (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 23 – 28 / Line 42 – 47 and Col. 9 Line 14 – 22: (a) a first rule applied to a workload of the first particular application constitutes a first workload rule that allows connection to the internet (Col. 10 Line 45 – 47) and augmenting the access control list that also includes (b) a default rule that blocks the access to the internet in case the user (client) does not respond to the security alert message (Col. 10 Line 26 – 28 / Line 51 – 53), or (c) determining, for example, whether to grant the access permission based on a particular port of the network traffic going through (Col. 9 Line 50 – 53), or (d) allowing (permitting) another application to act (e.g.) as a server to the internet as a second type of network (Col. 10 Line 39 – 41)).
As per claim 2, 3, 12 & 13, the instant claim is directed to a claimed content having functionality corresponding to the Claim 1, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
As per claim 4 & 14, Albert teaches identifying at least one workload in the second set of workloads that is not in the first set of workloads; and augmenting the access control list to include the at least one workload in the second set of workloads that is not in the first set of workloads (Albert: see above & Col. 9 Line 11 – 13 / Line 50 – 53 / Line 55 – 61: identifying at least one workload in a second set of workloads that is not in the first set of workloads such as a device, as a network focus, connects to different networks or resources (e.g. different file sharing rules w.r.t. different trusted zones (groups)) (Col. 9 Line 11 – 13 / Line 55 – 61) and augmenting the access control list that also includes determining, for example, whether to grant the access permission based on a particular port of the network traffic going through (Col. 9 Line 50 – 53), or allowing (permitting) another application to act (e.g.) as a server to the internet as a second type of network (Col. 10 Line 39 – 41)).
As per claim 5 & 15, Albert teaches identifying a first application associated with two or more workloads in the set of workloads (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 26 – 28 / Line 39 – 41 / Line 51 – 53: identifying a first application associated with two different workloads such as accessing to the internet in different cases that the user (client) does respond or does not respond to the security alert message so as to determine whether to block the access to the internet or not as a default rule), and a second application associated with two or more other workloads in the set of workloads identifying a 2nd application associated with two different workloads such as whether the 2nd application acts as a server or not to access the internet (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 39 – 41)).
As per claim 6 & 16, Albert teaches: forward testing the first augmented access control list; subsequent to forward testing the first augmented access control list, augmenting the first access control list to include second workload rules corresponding to the two or more workloads associated with the second application to yield a second augmented access control list; and forward testing the second augmented access control list (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 30 – 60: continue the forwarding testing by sequentially checking and selecting an instant active rule (policy) from a plurality of access rules / policies based on a pre-selected ordering of different security levels that would apply to the instant target application until one of ordered list of rules is 15satisfied (i.e. to be selected as an instant active rule and applied to the target application) (Albert: Col. 10 Line 54 – 60 / Line 34 – 36) || ((e.g.) Freund: Col. 27 Line 30 – 32), and wherein the sequence of testing includes: (a) applying a first workload rule that allows connection to the internet (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 45 – 47), (b) applying the secure rule that determines whether to grant the permission based on the user response from a user interface to a security alert message (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 25 – 29 / Line 51 – 53), (c) applying the second workload rule to allow workload of the second application (e.g. acting as a server to the internet) to access the internet with the user’s permission entered from the user interface (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 39 – 41), and (d) otherwise, applying the default security rule / policy to block the access in case when the user has no response to the alert from the user interface (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 25 – 29 / Line 51 – 53)).
As per claim 7 & 17, Albert teaches applying the first workload rules (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 45 – 47: applying a first workload rule that allows connection to the internet (Col. 10 Line 45 – 47)); and
applying the default rule after the first workload rules (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 25 – 29 / Line 51 – 53: otherwise, applying the default security rule / policy to block the access in case when the user has no response to the alert from the user interface).
As per claim 8 & 18, Albert teaches applying the first workload rules (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 45 – 47: applying a first workload rule that allows connection to the internet (Col. 10 Line 45 – 47));
applying the second workload rules (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 39 – 41: applying the second workload rule to allow workload of the second application (e.g. acting as a server to the internet) to access the internet with the user’s permission entered from the user interface); and
applying the default rule after applying all of the first workload rules and the second workload rules (Albert: see above & Col. 10 Line 25 – 29 / Line 51 – 53: otherwise, applying the default security rule / policy to block the access in case when the user has no response to the alert from the user interface).
As per claim 9 & 19, Albert teaches wherein the access control list includes a default rule that allows any network 2communication between any source and any destination (Albert: see above & Col. 16 Line 36 – 40, Col. 21 Line 5 – 9 and Col. 22 Line 9 – 12: the default policy can be initially set to allow (i.e. the lowest security level w/o the restriction (Col. 22 Line 9 – 12: i.e. allow) and then adjusted by the user or administrator as needed).
1As per claim 10, Albert teaches 3modifying the default rule to block any network communication between any source 4and any destination (Albert: see above & Col. 21 Line 5 – 7 & Col. 22 Line 9 – 12: to block all internet access to and from a device (i.e. any device as configurable by the user or administrator as a needed basis)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONGBIT CHAI whose telephone number is (571)272-3788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Lynn D. Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
---------------------------------------------------
/Longbit Chai/
Longbit Chai E.E. Ph.D.
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
No. #2621 – 2026 ---------------------------------------------------
Prosecution Insights