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 .
Claims 1-26 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 4, replace “estimate a the predetermined" with ---estimate the predetermined---.
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 is: “a conversion unit", "an extraction unit", and "an estimation unit" of claim 1.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the elements "a conversion unit", "an extraction unit", and "an estimation unit" are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification never clearly specifies what each of these elements are. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In the instant application, it is not clear in the specification as to what particular corresponding structures the Applicant intends to encompass for performing the claimed functions. The specification and drawings do not disclose sufficient corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the claimed functions. The specification merely repeats the function without any structure to perform the function. The drawing provided simply designates a 'block box' to perform the function (see for example FIG. 1, 21, 23, and 24). Thus, Examiner could not properly determine the scope of the claim as the specification does not set forth clear structure that performs each function invoked by the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The patent law requires that applicant must disclose his invention in such detail that it will not require undue experimentation for one skill in the art. Applicant did not comply with this requirement of the first paragraph. The examiner contends (at the time the invention was made) that it would require undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Applicant is reminded that no new matter is allowed in the amendment to the specifications under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.118(a). Dependent claims are rejected upon dependency of the above independent claims.
Claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation “extracting normal vector data having a relatively high similarity to the abnormal vector data from among a plurality of pieces of normal vector data obtained by converting a plurality of pieces of normal packet data using the model” which does specify how the extraction or separation is performed. Further, how do the normal data and abnormal vector data are related or what is their similarity. Interconnections between the normal vector data having a relatively high similarity to the abnormal vector data are extremely confusing and for the most part not detailed or mentioned in the claim. It is difficult to translate the claim and follow what processes are taking place. Correction is required.
Dependent claim depends from the base claim and inherently includes limitations therein and therefore is rejected as well.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Iizuka et al. “herein Iizuka” (U.S. PN: 11,507,076).
As per claims 1 and 5:
Iizuka substantially teaches estimation method and apparatus (see col. 5, lines 34-50) comprising a conversion unit comprising one more processors, configured to convert abnormal packet data into abnormal vector data using a model that converts packet data into vector data in which each byte of the packet data is associated with each vector representing a characteristic of a value of each byte an extraction unit that extracts configured to extract normal vector data having a relatively high similarity to the abnormal vector data from among a plurality of pieces of normal vector data obtained by converting a plurality of pieces of normal packet data using the model; (see col. 6, lines 32-67 to col. 7, lines 1-21, and col. 9, lines 36-43) and an estimation unit that estimates an abnormal byte in the abnormal packet data from a similarity between a vector corresponding to each byte of the abnormal vector data and a vector corresponding to each byte of the extracted normal vector data (see col. 7, lines 22-36, col, 13, lines 29-67 to col. 14, lines 1-28).
As per claim 2, Iizuka teaches wherein the model is generated by learning a value of each byte of a plurality of pieces of normal packet data (see col. 6, lines 32-67 to col. 7, lines 1-21, and col. 9, lines 36-43).
As per claim 3, Iizuka teaches wherein the extraction unit calculates a similarity between a vector of the abnormal vector data and a vector of the normal vector data for each byte of the abnormal vector data to calculate a similarity between the abnormal vector data and the normal vector data from the similarity calculated for each byte (see col. 6, lines 32-67 to col. 7, lines 1-21, and col. 9, lines 36-43).
As per claim 4, Iizuka teaches wherein in a case where a highest similarity among similarities between a vector corresponding to a predetermined byte of the abnormal packet data and a vector corresponding to each byte of the extracted normal vector data is lower than a predetermined threshold, the estimation unit estimates the predetermined byte as the abnormal byte (see col. 6, lines 32-67 to col. 7, lines 1-21, and col. 9, lines 36-43).
As per claim 6, Iizuka teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer to perform operations as the estimation apparatus (see col, 3, lines 7-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oba (U.S. PN: 11962479) teaches on the basis of the abnormality degree of detection target packet stream 20 that has been calculated by information calculator 27, determiner 28 determines whether or not detection target packet stream 20 is abnormal. Subsequently, determiner 28 outputs determiner 28 outputs the determination result to the outside of determiner 28. For example, determiner 28 may store a threshold value, and when the abnormality degree of detection target packet stream 20 is greater than or equal to the threshold value, determiner 28 may determine that detection target packet stream 20 is abnormal, and when the abnormality degree of detection target packet stream 20 is less than the threshold value, determiner 28 may determine that detection target packet stream 20 is not abnormal.
Gupta et al. (U.S. PN: 12,021,720) in FIG. 3, teaches training controller 204 includes the example feature extractor 304 to generate a feature vector based on pre-processed packet samples and features from the example pre-processor 302. The example feature extractor 304 generates or builds derived values of feature vectors (e.g., representative off features in n packet samples) that are to be informative and non-redundant to facilitate the training phase of the training controller 204. As used herein, a feature vector is an n-dimensional array (e.g., a vector) of features that represent some workload category. For example, a feature could be one of the f features such as inter-packet arrival time, protocol identifier, packet direction, source and destination, packet length (e.g., bit size), QoS, etc. For example, the network packet controller 202 of FIG. 2 captures a plurality of network data packets from the network 102 corresponding to a video call. In such an example, the feature extractor 304 extracts data packet features and generates vectors for the data packets and provides the vectors to the model trainer 308.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESAW T ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
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.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights