DETAILED ACTION
A response to the notice of non-compliant amendment was received on 06 July 2026. By this response, Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 have been amended. Claim 11 has been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2014/0112187, in view of Narayanan et al, US Patent 9009349, and Kupfer et al, US Patent 10498749, Applicant asserts that under a blacklist-based intrusion detection policy, the SDN controller transmits a preliminary packet-out message prior to receiving an analysis result, and under a whitelist-based intrusion detection policy, the SDN controller refrains from transmitting the preliminary packet-out message and controls packet handling only after receiving the IDS analysis result by transmitting a packet-out message (page 8 of the present response). Applicant also asserts that Kang, individually, does not teach or suggest selectively transmitting a packet-out message; that Narayanan, individually, does not teach or suggest determining whether to transmit a preliminary packet-out message prior to IDS analysis or using an intrusion detection policy to control the timing of transmission of the preliminary packet-out message; and that Kupfer, individually, does not address packet forwarding in vehicle networks or policy-based determination of whether a preliminary packet-out message is transmitted prior to IDS analysis (pages 9-10 of the present response). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., the mapping of the blacklist or whitelist to any particular actions by the controller, refraining from transmitting the preliminary message, selectively transmitting the preliminary packet-out message, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
However, in light of the amendments to the claims, the rejections are withdrawn and the claims as amended are considered to recite allowable subject matter as detailed below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Independent Claims 1 and 4 have been amended to recite “determining an intrusion detection policy”, “a preliminary packet-out message”, and “prior to receiving an analysis result” or similar language. Although the specification describes determining whether intrusion detection is performed based on a blacklist or whitelist, there is no mention of an intrusion detection policy. Further, although the specification describes a packet-out message, there is no mention of a preliminary packet-out message. Still further, the specification does not clearly describe determining whether to transmit a message prior to receiving an analysis result. Therefore, there is not clearly proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further detail, see below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claims 3 and 6 for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 7-21, it appears that each limitation paragraph should end with a semicolon instead of a comma, because certain limitations include internal commas, and semicolons would more clearly delineate the list of functions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 4 have been amended to recite “determining an intrusion detection policy”, “a preliminary packet-out message”, and “prior to receiving an analysis result” or similar language. Applicant has pointed to original Claim 11, Figure 9A, and paragraphs 0011 and 0083-0085 of the published application for support (see page 6 of the present response). Although the specification describes determining whether intrusion detection is performed based on a blacklist or whitelist (for example, paragraphs 0083-0084), there is no mention in these paragraphs or elsewhere of an intrusion detection policy or of determining an intrusion detection policy. Further, although the specification describes a packet-out message (for example, see paragraphs 0011 and 0083-0085), there is no mention in these paragraphs or elsewhere in the specification of a preliminary packet-out message. Still further, although the disclosure describes transmitting a packet-out message before the SDN controller receives an action based on a determination result (see original Claim 11), the specification does not clearly describe determining whether to transmit a message prior to receiving an analysis result as claimed. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “based on a determination of the intrusion detection policy, determine whether to transmit a preliminary packet-out message” in lines 14-15. It is not clear what aspect of the policy would be used to determine whether to transmit the preliminary message. The claim further recites “a command indicating an action to be performed on the incoming packet” in line 20. It is not clear whether this is the same command included in the preliminary message in line 17 or a distinct command, and it is not clear whether the action to be performed is the forwarding action of line 17. The claim additionally recites “the command” in line 22. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the command of line 17 or the command of line 20 if these commands are distinct. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “the command” in line 3. It is not clear to which of the potentially plural commands this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 4 recites “based on the determination of the intrusion detection policy, determining… whether to transmit a preliminary packet-out message” in lines 12-13. It is not clear what aspect of the policy would be used to determine whether to transmit the preliminary message. The claim further recites “a command indicating an action to be performed on the incoming packet” in lines 19-20. It is not clear whether this is the same command included in the preliminary message in line 15 or a distinct command, and it is not clear whether the action to be performed is the forwarding action of line 15. The claim additionally recites “a packet-out message” in line 22. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the preliminary packet-out message or a distinct message. The claim also recites “the command” in lines 23 and 25. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the command of line 15 or the command of line 19 if these commands are distinct. The claim further recites “the packet-out message” in line 25. If the packet-out message of line 22 is distinct from the preliminary packet-out message, then it is not clear to which of the messages this is intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “the packet-out message” in lines 5-6. It is not clear to which of the potentially plural messages this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 10 recites “the packet-out message” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the potentially plural messages this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 12 recites “the packet-out message” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the potentially plural messages this limitation is intended to refer.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not clearly teach or suggest, alone or in combination, determining whether to transmit a preliminary packet-out message prior to receiving an analysis result based on intrusion detection policy determined by whether intrusion detection is to be performed based on a blacklist or whitelist, in combination with the other claimed limitations.
It is noted that amendments which change the scope of the claims may require reconsideration of the determination of allowable subject matter.
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights