DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. It is noted that the IDS filed on February 2, 2024 contains an extremely large number of references for consideration by the Examiner. Examiner has given the references a limited review. If the applicant and/or applicant’s representative are aware of any particular reference or portion of a reference in the list which the examiner should pay particular attention to, it is requested that it be specifically pointed out in response to this office action.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 14 and 15, the phrase "adapted to" is not positively claimed limitation. Therefore, the limitations after the phrase "adapted to" are not considered the claimed limitation. It is suggested to remove the phrase "adapted to" (MPEP 2111.04).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
5. 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, 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-3, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vervier et al. (US 2018/0375894 A1, hereinafter “Vervier”) in view of Casassa Mont et al. (US 2018/0375953 A1, hereinafter “Casassa Mont”).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Vervier teaches a method for inferring a relationship between two entities, the method comprising the steps of: receiving at a server a network observation dataset, each data point in the dataset comprising (b)(i) a network address or (b)(ii) a device location (figs. 1, 3, 4); selecting from the dataset a first-type data point comprising: (B)(i) a first network address or (B)(ii) a first device location (figs. 1, 3, 4), identifying a first entity associated with the first network address or the first device location (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0024], ¶ [0050], determination module 108 may, as part of computing device 202 in FIG. 2, utilize the combined data mapped from the data servers 206A-206N and the organizational server 216 at step 306 and assign IP addresses or IP address ranges to each of one or more identified company domain names. ¶ [0049]); selecting from the dataset a second-type data point comprising: (C)(i) a second network address different from the first network address or (C)(ii) a second device location different from the first device location (figs. 1, 3, 4); identifying a second entity that is different from the first entity and that is associated with the second network address or the second device location (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0050], determination module 108 may, as part of computing device 202 in FIG. 2, utilize the combined data mapped from the data servers 206A-206N and the organizational server 216 at step 306 and assign IP addresses or IP address ranges to each of one or more identified company domain names. ¶ [0049], FIG. 4 including IP address ranges associated with an organization's primary domain name, a related organizational domain name, and an organization hosting provider domain name.); and inferring, at a baseline confidence level, a relationship between the first entity and the second entity (figs. 2-4, ¶ [0031], determine, based at least in part on the mapped data, a list of IP addresses identifying one or more relationships associated with the organization. ¶ [0049]. ¶ [0050], For example, the determination module 108 may apply label propagation to assign each of a plurality of organization name labels to an IP address or IP address range with a certain probability or confidence score in order to retrieve indirect relationships).
Vervier does not explicitly teach each data point in the dataset comprising (a) a device identifier, and (b)(i) a network address or (b)(ii) a device location; selecting from the dataset a first-type data point comprising: (A) a first device identifier, and (B)(i) a first network address or (B)(ii) a first device location; selecting from the dataset a second-type data point comprising: (A) the first device identifier, and (C)(i) a second network address different from the first network address or (C)(11) a second device location different from the first device location.
In other words, Vervier does not explicitly teach the dataset comprises a device identifier.
However, Casassa Mont teaches a data set comprising a device identifier and a network address or device location (fig. 2, ¶ [0024], Log 200 includes at least the following fields: an IP address 210, a hostname 220, and a Media Access Control (MAC) address 230. Figs. 3-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a device identifier, and a network address or a device location in the data set of Vervier and to select from the dataset a first-type data point comprising: a first device identifier, and a first network address or a first device location, to select from the dataset a second-type data point comprising: the first device identifier, and a second network address different from the first network address or a second device location different from the first device location in the system of Vervier to provide reliable references to networked devices with a persistent network identity (¶ [0016] of Casassa Mont).
Regarding claim 14, Vervier teaches a system (figs. 1, 2, 5) for inferring a relationship between two entities, comprising: a processor; a network port in communication with the processor (figs. 1, 5) and adapted to receive from a data source a network observation dataset, each data point in the dataset comprising one or more of: (i) a device identifier, (ii) a user identifier, (iii) a network address, or (ili) a device location (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0050], determination module 108 may, as part of computing device 202 in FIG. 2, utilize the combined data mapped from the data servers 206A-206N and the organizational server 216 at step 306 and assign IP addresses or IP address ranges to each of one or more identified company domain names. ¶ [0049]); and a memory coupled to the processor and comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, program the processor to: select from the dataset a first-type data point comprising: and (B)(i) a first network address or (B)(ii) a first device location; identify a first entity associated with the first network address or the first device location (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0024], ¶ [0050], determination module 108 may, as part of computing device 202 in FIG. 2, utilize the combined data mapped from the data servers 206A-206N and the organizational server 216 at step 306 and assign IP addresses or IP address ranges to each of one or more identified company domain names. ¶ [0049]); select from the dataset a second-type data point comprising: (C)(i) a second network address or (C)(ii) a second device location; identify a second entity associated with the second network address or the second device location (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0050], determination module 108 may, as part of computing device 202 in FIG. 2, utilize the combined data mapped from the data servers 206A-206N and the organizational server 216 at step 306 and assign IP addresses or IP address ranges to each of one or more identified company domain names. ¶ [0049], FIG. 4 including IP address ranges associated with an organization's primary domain name, a related organizational domain name, and an organization hosting provider domain name.); and infer a relationship between the first entity and the second entity and designate to the inferred relationship a baseline confidence level (figs. 2-4, ¶ [0031], determine, based at least in part on the mapped data, a list of IP addresses identifying one or more relationships associated with the organization. ¶ [0049]. ¶ [0050], For example, the determination module 108 may apply label propagation to assign each of a plurality of organization name labels to an IP address or IP address range with a certain probability or confidence score in order to retrieve indirect relationships).
Vervier does not explicitly teach select from the dataset a first-type data point comprising: (A)(i) a first device identifier or (A)(ii) a first user identifier, and (B)(i) a first network address or (B)(ii) a first device location and select from the dataset a second-type data point comprising: (A)(i) the first device identifier or (A)(ii) the first user identifier, and (C)(i) a second network address or (C)(ii) a second device location.
In other words, Vervier does not explicitly teach the dataset comprises a device identifier or a user identifier.
However, Casassa Mont teaches a data set comprising a device identifier and a network address or device location (fig. 2, ¶ [0024], Log 200 includes at least the following fields: an IP address 210, a hostname 220, and a Media Access Control (MAC) address 230. Figs. 3-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a device identifier and a network address or a device location in the data set of Vervier and to select from the dataset a first-type data point comprising: a first device identifier, and a first network address or a first device location, to select from the dataset a second-type data point comprising: the first device identifier, and a second network address different from the first network address or a second device location different from the first device location in the system of Vervier to provide reliable references to networked devices with a persistent network identity (¶ [0016] of Casassa Mont).
Regarding claim 2, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the first network address comprises: a first Internet Protocol (IP) address, a first service set identifier (SSID), or a first basic SSID (BSSID); and the second network address comprises a second IP address, a second SSID, or a second BSSID (Vervier: fig. 4. Casassa Mont: fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont teaches the method of claim 1. Vervier teaches comprising: selecting from the dataset a third-type data point comprising: a (C)(i) the second network address or (C)(ii) the second device location (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0050], determination module 108 may, as part of computing device 202 in FIG. 2, utilize the combined data mapped from the data servers 206A-206N and the organizational server 216 at step 306 and assign IP addresses or IP address ranges to each of one or more identified company domain names. ¶ [0049]); selecting from the dataset a fourth-type data point comprising: (B)(i) the first network address or (B)(ii) the first device location; and determining baseline confidence level (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0050], determination module 108 may, as part of computing device 202 in FIG. 2, utilize the combined data mapped from the data servers 206A-206N and the organizational server 216 at step 306 and assign IP addresses or IP address ranges to each of one or more identified company domain names. ¶ [0049], ¶ [0050]).
Vervier does not explicitly teach a third-type data point comprising: (D) a second device identifier, and (C)(i) the second network address or (C)(ii) the second device location; selecting from the dataset a fourth-type data point comprising: (D) the second device identifier, and (B)(i) the first network address or (B)(ii) the first device location and increasing the baseline confidence level.
In other words, Vervier does not explicitly teach the dataset comprises a device identifier.
However, Casassa Mont teaches a data set comprising a device identifier and a network address or device location (fig. 2, ¶ [0024], Log 200 includes at least the following fields: an IP address 210, a hostname 220, and a Media Access Control (MAC) address 230. Figs. 3-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a second device identifier, and a network address or a device location in the data set of Vervier and to select from the dataset a second device identifier, and the second network address or the second device location, and to select from the dataset a fourth-type data point comprising: the second device identifier, and the first network address or the first device location; and to increase the baseline confidence level in the system of Vervier to provide reliable references to networked devices with a persistent network identity (¶ [0016] of Casassa Mont).
8. Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vervier in view of Casassa Mont as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Costante (US 2024/0340299 A1, hereinafter “Costante”).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 21, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont teaches the method of claim 1.
Vervier does not explicitly teach receiving an enrichment attribute; testing whether the enrichment attribute is associated with the first entity or the second entity; and increasing the baseline confidence level, if the enrichment attribute is determined to be associated with the first entity or the second entity; and otherwise, decreasing the baseline confidence level or invalidating the inferred relationship.
However, it is well known in the art to receive an enrichment attribute; test whether the enrichment attribute is associated with the first entity or the second entity; and increasing the baseline confidence level, and update the baseline confidence level, as evidenced by (¶ [0036], ¶ [0037], ¶ [0038], Each model comprises a plurality of attributes, each model may be formed by a collection of attributes. The models may for example initially be empty Each model may be associated, by an identifier, with a particular host or a particular link. When data traffic has been parsed, providing attribute values of the first host, second host and/or link, the respective model that relates to the respective one of the first host, second host and link is updated by adding the attribute value, in case the attribute value is not featured in the respective model yet. Otherwise the model is left as is, or a level of confidence of the respective attribute value may be increased. ¶ [0217]) of Costante.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive an enrichment attribute, test whether the enrichment attribute is associated with the first entity or the second entity; and increase the baseline confidence level, if the enrichment attribute is determined to be associated with the first entity or the second entity and otherwise, decrease the baseline confidence level or invalidating the inferred relationship in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont to utilize conventional techniques of machine learning/training.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante teaches the method of claim 5.
Vervier does not explicitly teach wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises an entity identifier; and the testing step comprises determining whether the entity identifier identifies the first entity, the second entity, or a different third entity.
Costante teaches the enrichment attribute (figs. 5-7, ¶ [0038]).
Vervier further teaches determining whether the entity identifier identifies the first entity, the second entity, or a different third entity (fig. 4, ¶ [0024], ¶ [0046]-¶ [0048], mapping output may be (customer) IP address <-> product license key <-> company name. ¶ [0049], ¶ [0050]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include an entity identifier, as the enrichment attribute to determine whether the entity identifier identifies the first entity, the second entity, or a different third entity in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante to utilize conventional techniques of machine learning/training.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante teaches the method of claim 5.
Vervier does not explicitly teach wherein the enrichment attribute comprises a physical location associated with the first or the second network address.
Costante teaches wherein the enrichment attribute comprises a physical location associated with the first or the second network address (fig. 5-7, ¶ [0038], The model of a host may include, but not being limited to, one or more of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, Medium Access Control (MAC) address, MAC vendor, model, firmware, serial number, applications, ports, protocols, services, sent data, received data, role, operating system, first recorded activity, last recorded activity, network, criticality, sensitivity, owner, geographical location, labels, username, agent name, Uniform Resource Locator(s) (URL(s)), etc. [0136], ¶ [0168], ¶ [0172]-¶ [0178]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use physical location associated with the first or the second network address as an attribute in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante to utilize conventional techniques of machine learning/training.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante teaches the method of claim 5.
Vervier does not explicitly teach wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises a classification of the first or the second network address; and the testing step comprises determining whether the classification indicates a business entity.
Costante teaches an enrichment attribute (figs. 5-7, ¶ [0038]).
Vervier further teaches classification of the first or the second network address; and determining whether the classification indicates a business entity (figs. 3, 4, ¶ [0037]-¶ [0039], ¶ [0049], ¶ [0050]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include classification of the first or the second network address as an enrichment attribute to determine whether the classification indicate a business entity in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante to utilize conventional techniques of machine learning/training.
Regarding claim 12 and 16, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante teaches the method of claim 5.
Vervier does not explicitly teach wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises a list of devices associated with the first or the second network address and a respective type of each device; and the testing step comprises determining whether one or more devices in the list are endpoint devices.
Costante teaches the enrichment attribute comprises a list of devices associated with the first or the second network address and a respective type of each device; and the testing step comprises determining whether one or more devices in the list are endpoint devices (figs. 5, 8, ¶ [0373]-¶ [0380], For instance, to be able to say that the role of a host is server or client, one has to look at the functionCode and the protoId fields of different messages and at the number of messages with a certain functionCode (e.g., server typically are the destination of a high number of messages on certain ports with certain message codes). Table 3. ¶ [0065]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a list of devices associated with the first or the second network address and a respective type of each device as an attribute and to determining whether one or more devices in the list are endpoint devices in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante to utilize conventional techniques of machine learning/training.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante teaches the method of claim 5.
Vervier does not explicitly teach wherein the first data point or the second data point comprises the enrichment attribute.
Costante teaches wherein the first data point or the second data point comprises the enrichment attribute (figs. 5-7, ¶ [0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include an enrichment attribute in the first data point or the second data point in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante to utilize conventional techniques of machine learning/training.
9 Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vervier in view of Casassa and Costante as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Scherzer et al. (US 2011/0159818 A1, hereinafter “Scherzer”).
Regarding claim 7, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont teaches the method of claim 5.
Vervier does not explicitly teach wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises a service set identifier (SSID); and the testing step comprises determining whether the SSID is associated with the first network address or the second network address or neither the first nor the second network address.
Scherzer teaches an attribute comprises a service set identifier (SSID); and the testing step comprises determining whether the SSID is associated with a first network address or a second network address or neither the first nor the second network address (figs. 1, 3, ¶ [0055], ¶ [0057], ¶ [0071], Examples of these attributes attached to the access point in resource classification database record include the SSID, the MAC address, location (coordinates, address), owning organization (ISP, community organization, company, etc.), backhaul speed, security type, login type (landing page, open), paid versus free access, the address from IP conversion (such as a general area, city, and the like. ¶ [0072], ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include, SSID as the enrichment attribute and to determine whether the SSID is associated with the first network address or the second network address or neither the first nor the second network address in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante to further improve industrial applicability.
10. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tipton et al. (US 2018/0152881 A1, hereinafter “Tipton”).
Regarding claim 10, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante teaches the method of claim 5.
Vervier does not explicitly teach wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises a list of Access Points (APs) associated with the first network address; and the testing step comprises determining whether one or more APs in the list are designated as non-guest APs.
Tipton teaches a list of AP and determining whether one or more APs in the list are designated as non-guest Aps (¶ [0016], Naming trends can be employed in generating a “white list” and/or “black list” related to a public/private AP status. As an example, a black list can comprise the term “private” such that any SSID including the term “private” is excluded from further consideration as a public AP, e.g., the SSID “AT&T OPEN WI-FI” could be considered public because it does not include the word “private” while the SSID “AT&T PRIVATE WI-FI” can be excluded as a public AP based on a blacklist including the word “private. White listing can operate similarly to the inclusion of an AP into an associated status. For example, where the term “open” is on a whitelist for public status, the SSID “AT&T OPEN WI-FI” can be determined to be a public AP based directly on the term “open” in the SSID and the white list. ¶ [0017], table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a list of Access Points (APs) associated with the first network address, as an enrichment attribute and to determine whether one or more APs in the list are designated as non-guest APs in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante to further improve industrial applicability (¶ [0014] of Tipton).
Regarding claim 11, Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante teaches the method of claim 5.
Vervier does not explicitly teach wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises a list of Access Points (APs) associated with the second network address; and the testing step comprises determining whether one or more APs in the list are designated as guest APs..
Tipton teaches a list of AP and determining whether one or more APs in the list are designated as non-guest Aps (¶ [0016], Naming trends can be employed in generating a “white list” and/or “black list” related to a public/private AP status. As an example, a black list can comprise the term “private” such that any SSID including the term “private” is excluded from further consideration as a public AP, e.g., the SSID “AT&T OPEN WI-FI” could be considered public because it does not include the word “private” while the SSID “AT&T PRIVATE WI-FI” can be excluded as a public AP based on a blacklist including the word “private. White listing can operate similarly to the inclusion of an AP into an associated status. For example, where the term “open” is on a whitelist for public status, the SSID “AT&T OPEN WI-FI” can be determined to be a public AP based directly on the term “open” in the SSID and the white list. ¶ [0017], table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a list of Access Points (APs) associated with the first network address, as an enrichment attribute and to determine whether one or more APs in the list are designated as guest APs in the system of Vervier in view of Casassa Mont and Costante to further improve industrial applicability (¶ [0014] of Tipton).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 4 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “determining that: (i) a total number or frequency of the first-type data points in the dataset is at least equal to a specified home-count or home-frequency threshold; determining that: (i) a total number or frequency of the second-type data points in the dataset is at least equal to a specified visitor-count or visitor-frequency threshold; and increasing the baseline confidence level” in combination of limitations specified in the base claim.
Double Patenting
13. 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
14. Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18, 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1 and 18, claim 1 or 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches a method/system for inferring a relationship between two entities, the method comprising the steps of: receiving at a server a network observation dataset, each data point in the dataset comprising (a) a device identifier, and (b)(i) a network address or (b)(ii) a device location; selecting from the dataset a first-type data point comprising: (A) a first device identifier, and (B)(i) a first network address or (B)(ii) a first device location; identifying a first entity associated with the first network address or the first device location; selecting from the dataset a second-type data point comprising: (A) the first device identifier, and (C)(i) a second network address different from the first network address or (C)(11) a second device location different from the first device location; identifying a second entity that is different from the first entity and that is associated with the second network address or the second device location; and inferring, at a baseline confidence level, a relationship between the first entity and the second entity.
Claims 1 and 18, merely broaden the scope of claim 1 or 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 by removing limitations “determining that: a total number or frequency of the first-type data points in the dataset is at least equal to a specified home-count or home-frequency threshold; and determining that: a total number or frequency of the second-type data points in the dataset is at least equal to a specified visitor-count or visitor-frequency threshold.”
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches the first network address comprises: a first Internet Protocol (IP) address, a first service set identifier (SSID), or a first basic SSID (BSSID); and the second network address comprises a second IP address, a second SSID, or a second BSSID.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, claim 3 ad 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches further comprising: selecting from the dataset a third-type data point comprising: (D) a second device identifier, and (C)(i) the second network address or (C)(ii) the second device location; selecting from the dataset a fourth-type data point comprising: (D) the second device identifier, and (B)(i) the first network address or (B)(ii) the first device location; and increasing the baseline confidence level.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches further comprising: determining that: (i) a total number or frequency of the first-type data points in the dataset is at least equal to a specified home-count or home-frequency threshold; determining that: (i) a total number or frequency of the second-type data points in the dataset is at least equal to a specified visitor-count or visitor-frequency threshold; and increasing the baseline confidence level.
Regarding claims 5 and 21, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches further comprising: receiving an enrichment attribute; testing whether the enrichment attribute is associated with the first entity or the second entity; and increasing the baseline confidence level, if the enrichment attribute is determined to be associated with the first entity or the second entity; and otherwise, decreasing the baseline confidence level or invalidating the inferred relationship.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises an entity identifier; and the testing step comprises determining whether the entity identifier identifies the first entity, the second entity, or a different third entity.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein:
the enrichment attribute comprises a service set identifier (SSID); and the testing step comprises determining whether the SSID is associated with the first network address or the second network address or neither the first nor the second network address.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein the enrichment attribute comprises a physical location associated with the first or the second network address.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein:
the enrichment attribute comprises a classification of the first or the second network address; and the testing step comprises determining whether the classification indicates a business entity.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches
wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises a list of Access Points (APs) associated with the first network address; and the testing step comprises determining whether one or more APs in the list are designated as non-guest APs.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein: the enrichment attribute comprises a list of Access Points (APs) associated with the second network address; and the testing step comprises determining whether one or more APs in the list are designated as guest APs.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein:
the enrichment attribute comprises a list of devices associated with the first or the second network address and a respective type of each device; and the testing step comprises determining whether one or more devices in the list are endpoint devices.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein the first data point or the second data point comprises the enrichment attribute.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 or 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches a system for inferring a relationship between two entities, comprising: a processor; a network port in communication with the processor and adapted to receive from a data source a network observation dataset, each data point in the dataset comprising one or more of: (i) a device identifier, (11) a user identifier, (iii) a network address, or (ili) a device location; and a memory coupled to the processor and comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, program the processor to: select from the dataset a first-type data point comprising: (A)(i) a first device identifier or (A)(ii) a first user identifier, and (B)(1) a first network address or (B)(ii) a first device location; identify a first entity associated with the first network address or the first device location; select from the dataset a second-type data point comprising: (A)(1) the first device identifier or (A)(ii) the first user identifier, and (C)(i) a second network address or (C)(ii) a second device location; identify a second entity associated with the second network address or the second device location; and infer a relationship between the first entity and the second entity and designate to the inferred relationship a baseline confidence level.
Claim 14 merely broadens the scope of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 by removing limitations “determining that: a total number or frequency of the first-type data points in the dataset is at least equal to a specified home-count or home-frequency threshold; and determining that: a total number or frequency of the second-type data points in the dataset is at least equal to a specified visitor-count or visitor-frequency threshold.”
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein: the network port is adapted to receive an enrichment attribute; and the instructions further program the processor to: test whether the enrichment attribute is associated with the first entity or the second entity; and increase the baseline confidence level, if the enrichment attribute is determined to be associated with the first entity or the second entity; and otherwise, decrease the baseline confidence level or invalidate the inferred relationship.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein the enrichment attribute comprises: (i) an entity identifier, (ii) a service set identifier (SSID), (iii) a physical location associated with the first or the second network address, (iv) a classification of the first or the second network address, (v) a list of Access Points (APs) associated with the first or the second network address and a respective type of each AP, or (vi) a list of devices associated with the first or the second network address and a respective type of each device.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,893 B1 teaches wherein the first or the second data point comprises the enrichment attribute.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 PM).
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477