Prior art

The USPTO database search for patent number 8117639 confirms its existence and details, as already established in the patent summary.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US8117639

Given the limitations of the search tool in directly extracting abstracts and detailed content from cited prior art patents, the following analysis of "most relevant prior art" is based on the titles of the cited U.S. Patent Documents as listed in US8117639. A definitive assessment of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a thorough review of the full text, claims, and drawings of each cited patent, which is not feasible with the current tools.

Based on titles highly indicative of the core concepts of US8117639 (system and method for providing access control, user authentication, and user-profile-based provisioning), the following patents are identified as potentially most relevant:

1. US6324582B1

   • Full Citation: US6324582B1, "System and method for enforcing network usage policies", Singh et al., published November 27, 2001.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2001-11-27; Filing Date: 1998-04-29.
   • Brief Description (based on title): This patent likely describes a system and method for implementing and enforcing rules or guidelines related to how a network can be used. This directly aligns with the "provisioning" and "access control" aspects of US8117639.
   • Potential Anticipation (general inference based on title): This prior art could potentially anticipate elements of Independent Claims 7, 17, and 22 of US8117639, which relate to "receiving a user profile" and "provisioning a user with access to a network based on the user profile." It might also anticipate aspects of the system claims (Claims 1 and 12) if it describes a control device that establishes and enforces such policies.

2. US6470387B1

   • Full Citation: US6470387B1, "Method and apparatus for authenticating users over a network", Lim et al., published October 22, 2002.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2002-10-22; Filing Date: 2000-11-24.
   • Brief Description (based on title): This patent likely details a method and equipment for verifying the identity of users attempting to access a network. This directly relates to the "authentication" aspect of US8117639.
   • Potential Anticipation (general inference based on title): This prior art could potentially anticipate elements of Independent Claims 1, 12, and 23 of US8117639, specifically those steps involving "determining if the network communication is associated with an authenticated user," "directing the user to an authentication interface," "receiving credentials from the user," and "authenticating the user based on the credentials."

3. US6289359B1

   • Full Citation: US6289359B1, "System and method for intelligent filtering of network information", Macleod et al., published September 11, 2001.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2001-09-11; Filing Date: 1999-12-21.
   • Brief Description (based on title): This patent likely describes mechanisms for selectively processing or blocking network data based on certain criteria. This is relevant to the "access control" and "firewall rules" discussed in US8117639.
   • Potential Anticipation (general inference based on title): This prior art could potentially anticipate elements related to the "provisioning" of access control, such as firewall rules, as described in Independent Claims 7, 17, and 22, especially if its filtering is customizable or policy-driven. It might also touch upon system components for receiving and processing network communications as per Claims 1 and 12.

Limitations:
A thorough and confident assessment of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires access to and detailed analysis of the full text, claims, and drawings of each cited prior art patent. The "brief descriptions" and "potential anticipation" provided above are based solely on the titles of these patents, as direct content retrieval for abstracts and full patent texts was not reliably achievable through the current search mechanism. Therefore, these statements represent general inferences rather than conclusive legal analysis.