DETAILED ACTION
The current office action is in response to the communication filed on 5/15/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Examiner suggests the following title: AUTOMATED NETWORK CONFIGURATION USING CONFIGURATION TEMPLATES BASED ON DEVICE TRAFFIC ATTRIBUTES.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typically abbreviations/acronyms are used after an expansion is provided to the abbreviations/acronyms. However, in the Specification, “IP,” “ARP,” “RF,” “VAX,” “CPU,” “GPU,” “EEPROM,” “LTE,” “AMD,” “OMAP,” “ARM,” “ASIC,” “PLD,” “PLA,” “PAL,” “VLSI,” etc. are used before they are expanded. It is suggested to use expansions before using their abbreviations/acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner respectfully requests applicant to review and correct any other paragraphs that may contain typographical/grammatical errors.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a traffic classifier module characterizing, identifying, assigning, providing, accesses and selects in claims 16-17 and 19; a virtual local area network (VLAN) configurator selects and provides in claims 16-18; and a IoT proxy module allows, whitelists and receives in claims 18-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 7-15 and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…a traffic template…” in claim 2, line 8, should be “… [[a]] the matching traffic template…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 10, line 8 and claim 17, lines 8-9.
Typically abbreviations/acronyms are used after an expansion is provided to the abbreviations/acronyms. However, in claims 4, 7, 12, 15 and 20, the abbreviations/acronyms “IP” and “HTTP” are used before they are expanded. It is suggested to use expansions before using their abbreviations/acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…the device type…” in claim 8, line 4, should be “… [[the]] a device type…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…network traffic…” in claim 8, line 5, should be “… the network traffic…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…the configuration template.” in claim 8, lines 11-12, should be “…the matching configuration template” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 9, line 2.
The limitation “…a portion of the traffic…” in claim 15, lines 1-2, should be “…a portion of the network traffic…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…a portion of the network traffic…” in claim 16, line 5, should be “…a portion of [[the]] network traffic…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…the traffic classifier providing…” in claim 16, line 7, should be “…the traffic classifier module providing…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…the router module…” in claim 17, line 7, should be “…[[the]] a router module…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 18, lines 3-4.
Note: For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted based on the claim language suggested by the Examiner.
All dependent claims are objected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
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 claims at issue 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,230. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the instant application disclose a virtual local area network (VLAN) configurator having access to a number of configuration templates, each configuration template associating a device type to corresponding network permissions and a traffic classifier configured to characterize attributes of a portion of the network traffic originating from a new source, identify the new source as a new device, and assign to the new device a corresponding device type, the traffic classifier providing the corresponding device type to the VLAN configurator and, therefrom, the VLAN configurator selects a matching configuration template from the number of configuration templates associated with the corresponding device type, wherein the VLAN configurator provides switch settings of the matching configuration template to a switch to cause the switch to create a new VLAN thereon comprising the new device. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. By this rationale, the claims of the instant application are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Srinivas et al.” (US PGPUB 2021/0392150) (Hereinafter Srinivas).
With respect to claim 8, Srinivas teaches a method for automatically configuring a network exchanging network traffic (Abstract), comprising:
accessing a number of configuration templates, each configuration template of the number of configuration templates associating the device type to network permissions (using the device type identified by the matching classification rule to retrieve one or more sets of policy attributes to use to direct one or more enterprise policy engines to implement one or more policies on the packets sent and received by the IoT device; Fig. 1, [0053]-[0054]);
monitoring network traffic on a private network; and upon determining that the network traffic comprises a new source of network traffic (feature set for each IoT device is provided to device classifier; Fig. 1, [0034]-[0035], [0041]-[0042], [0045]-[0046]), further performing:
identifying the new source as a new device of a corresponding device type (device classifier uses classification rules stored in a rule storage to classify each IoT device based on discriminating traffic features. The classification operation identifies a category for the IoT device by comparing the set of features identified for the IoT device with sets of features that are match criteria of classification rules; Fig. 1, [0034], [0041], [0045]-[0046]);
selecting a matching configuration template from the number of configuration templates associated with the corresponding device type (using the device type identified by the matching classification rule to retrieve one or more sets of policy attributes to use to direct one or more enterprise policy engines to implement one or more policies on the packets sent and received by the IoT device; Fig. 1, [0053]-[0054]); and
permitting network traffic from the new device that matches the configuration template (using the device type identified by the matching classification rule to retrieve one or more sets of policy attributes to use to direct one or more enterprise policy engines to implement one or more policies on the packets sent and received by the IoT device; Fig. 1, [0053]-[0057]).
With respect to claim 9, Srinivas teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising denying network traffic from the new device that does not match the configuration template (using a firewall rule for a particular type of IoT devices to restrict the destination devices with which that type of IoT devices can communicate; Fig. 1, [0053]-[0057], [0087], [0107]).
With respect to claim 10, Srinivas teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
accessing a number of traffic templates, each traffic template of the number of traffic templates associating a device type with corresponding traffic attributes (device classifier uses classification rules stored in a rule storage to classify each IoT device based on discriminating traffic features. The classification operation identifies a category for the IoT device by comparing the set of features identified for the IoT device with sets of features that are match criteria of classification rules; Fig. 1, [0034]-[0035], [0041], [0045]-[0046]);
selecting a matching traffic template from the number of traffic templates having traffic attributes that best match attributes of a portion of the network traffic originating from the new source, the corresponding device type being associated with the matching traffic template (device classifier uses classification rules stored in a rule storage to classify each IoT device based on discriminating traffic features. The classification operation identifies a category for the IoT device by comparing the set of features identified for the IoT device with sets of features that are match criteria of classification rules; Fig. 1, [0034], [0041], [0045]-[0046]); and
providing a firewall rule to a firewall to permit traffic with the new device that has traffic attributes that match the traffic template and deny all other traffic (directing one or more routers to implement one or more firewall policies to block certain types of traffic received or sent by an IoT device; Fig. 1, [0053]-[0057], [0087], [0107]).
With respect to claim 11, Srinivas teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the traffic attributes comprise one or more of a destination internet protocol (IP) address and port, hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) header information, a directory name service (DNS) request, an IP address corresponding to DNS requests, and an order of connections (feature set for each IoT device is provided to device classifier. Feature set includes server data tuples (e.g., servers contacted by the device over time), transmitted bytes data tuples (e.g., data transmitted by the device over time), received bytes data tuples (e.g., data received by the device over time), protocol data (e.g., protocols used by the device over time), Wi-Fi metrics data tuples (e.g., ESSID, Wi-Fi channel, etc. used by the device over time), network attributes data tuples (e.g., network attributes such as VLAN used by the device over time), device attributes data tuples (e.g., OUI (organizationally unique identifier) of the chipset used, manufacturer of the chipset, etc.), and network device data tuples (e.g., data sent by network devices like WLCs, switches, routers, network access control or IPS/IDS systems, etc.); Fig. 1, [0034]-[0035], [0041]-[0042], [0045]-[0046]).
With respect to claim 12, Srinivas teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the traffic attributes comprise IP addresses of known destinations corresponding to the device type (feature set for each IoT device is provided to device classifier. The set of features includes IP addresses of destination servers with which devices of a particular type communicate; Fig. 1, [0034]-[0035], [0041]-[0042], [0045]-[0046], [0056]).
With respect to claim 13, Srinivas teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: routing all network traffic destined to the new device to a proxy; and wherein the proxy allows network traffic only with previously whitelisted destinations (directing one or more middlebox engines and appliances to implement one or more policies to ensure that an IoT device only communicates with certain destination IP addresses; Fig. 1, [0053]-[0057], [0087], [0107]).
With respect to claim 14, Srinivas teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the proxy whitelists destinations associated with traffic attributes corresponding to the device type (directing one or more middlebox engines and appliances to implement one or more policies to ensure that an IoT device only communicates with certain destination IP addresses; Fig. 1, [0046]-[0047], [0053]-[0057], [0087], [0107]).
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 of this title, 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivas in view of “Kommalapati et al.” (US PGPUB 2022/0108806) (Hereinafter Kommalapati).
With respect to claim 15, Srinivas teaches the method of claim 13. Srinivas does not teach wherein the proxy receives HTTP data as a portion of the traffic to or from the new device, and encrypts the HTTP data into hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) data.
However, Kommalapati teaches wherein the proxy receives HTTP data as a portion of the traffic to or from the new device, and encrypts the HTTP data into hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) data (a gateway node establishes a connection with IoT devices using hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS); [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using a proxy for encrypting HTTP data into HTTPS to Srinivas because Srinivas discloses directing switches to implement policies on the packets sent and received by a device ([0053]) and Kommalapati suggests using a proxy for encrypting HTTP data into HTTPS ([0031]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kommalapati in the Srinivas system in order to provide secure, encrypted and logically isolated transfer of network traffic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chambers et al. US 2014/0068030. Discloses automatically applying access control policies based on device types.
Arora et al. US 2019/0238539. Discloses automatically onboarding an end device using device profiles.
Kohout et al. US 2020/0120004. Discloses automatically configuring access control policies based on device type.
Devaraj et al. US 2021/0352013. Discloses propagating access control list (ACL) rules based on device class.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights