DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application and preliminary amendment filed 05/25/2023.
Claims 1-8 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are independent Claims.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed 05/25/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed (05/25/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa (US 20190065586) in view of Chu et al. (US 20180096261).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Yoshikawa teaches an identifier generation device comprising: identifier generation circuitry (Figs. 1 and 2) configured to:
acquire flow data of an application ([0010] and [0030]);
calculate first feature vectors from the flow data ([0032] and [0041-0043]);
convert the first feature vectors into second feature vectors to which feature vectors of an identical type of application are similar ([0047-0048]);
cluster the second feature vectors and add a label to the clustered second feature vectors ([0030] and [0059-0061]);
generate a learning data set from the second feature vectors to which the label is added ([0043] and [0063-0064]);
supply the learning data set to an identifier ([0037] and [0041-0042]); and
update a setting of the identifier to which the learning data set is supplied ([0040] and [0078-0079]).
Yoshikawa, however, does not explicitly indicate that the label is the pseudo-label.
Chu teaches the use of the pseudo-labels (Abstract, [0044], and [0058]: pseudo-labels).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoshikawa with Chu because it would have provided the enhanced capability for executing a plurality of unsupervised anomaly detection machine learning algorithms in an ensemble using the plurality of feature vectors to generate a set of predictions.
As to claim 2:
Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach, Chu teaches the identifier generation circuitry configured to: acquire the flow data for each Internet Protocol (IP) address; calculate the statistical first feature vector for each IP address; convert the first feature vectors into the second feature vectors mapped to a predetermined latent space; and perform unsupervised clustering on the second feature vectors ([0058-0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoshikawa with Chu because it would have provided the enhanced capability for executing a plurality of unsupervised anomaly detection machine learning algorithms in an ensemble using the plurality of feature vectors to generate a set of predictions.
As to claim 3:
Yoshikawa teaches calculate, as the first feature vector, at least one of histograms of the number of packets, the number of bytes, and the number of bytes per packet ([0060-0064]). Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach, Chu teaches acquire the flow data for each of the IP addresses per predetermined time ([0057-0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoshikawa with Chu because it would have provided the enhanced capability for executing a plurality of unsupervised anomaly detection machine learning algorithms in an ensemble using the plurality of feature vectors to generate a set of predictions.
As to claim 4:
Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach, Chu teaches perform unsupervised clustering of the second feature vector a plurality of times by a predetermined scheme ([0058-0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoshikawa with Chu because it would have provided the enhanced capability for executing a plurality of unsupervised anomaly detection machine learning algorithms in an ensemble using the plurality of feature vectors to generate a set of predictions.
As to claim 5:
Yoshikawa does not explicitly teach, Chu teaches randomly extract the second feature vector to which the pseudo-label is added, and generate the learning data set including a predetermined number of pieces of learning data ([0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yoshikawa with Chu because it would have provided the enhanced capability for executing a plurality of unsupervised anomaly detection machine learning algorithms in an ensemble using the plurality of feature vectors to generate a set of predictions.
As to claim 6:
Yoshikawa teaches update a setting of an initial parameter or a learning method based on information regarding a parameter of the identifier and identification accuracy of test data before and after the learning data set is supplied ([0037] and [0042-0043]).
As to claim 7:
Refer to the discussion of claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 7 is the same as claim 1, except claim 7 is a method claim and claim 1 is a system claim.
As to claim 8:
Refer to the discussion of claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 8 is the same as claim 1, except claim 8 is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim and claim 1 is a system claim.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144