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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed November 26, 2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims in the filed amendment, and canceled claims 5,7,12,14,19,21. Claims 1-4,6,8-11,13,15-18,20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/26/25, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Akella does not teach “wherein a subset of the devices within the group at the first hierarchical level are dynamically grouped into a first subgroup at the second hierarchical level based on one or more first ones of the parameters for the communication behavior corresponding to learned behaviors of the subset of the devices”.
In reply, Firstly, Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case the claim only requires that a device subgroup is based on communication behavior. Secondly, Akella teaches that devices are grouped based on communication attributes. Akella further teaches that the devices within a group are further clustered into subsets of devices, where the clustering is also based on their communication attributes. Anomalous communication behavior is detected when the communication behavior of a device is determined to be different from the learned normal communication behavior of normal devices. Since all devices in the group and cluster are categorized based on their communication behavior, then this is seen to satisfy the claim. (See Akella, at least ¶s 55,70,121,122,124)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4,6,8-11,13,15-18,20 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.
In claim 1, for example
line 11 recites “communication behaviors”, and line 12 recites “the communication behavior”. However, it is unclear if these are the same or different from each other. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the communication behavior” limitation in the claim;
lines 12 & 14 recite “parameters”. However, it is unclear if these are the same or different from each other. The claim appears to say that parameters include parameters, and does not make proper distinction between the different instances of each recited “parameters”.
line 22 recites “the learned behaviors”. However there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8,15 are slight variations of claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4,6,8-11,13,15-18,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akella et al (US Publication 20210385238) in view of Srinivas et al (US Publication 20210392171).
In reference to claim 1, Akella teaches a computer-implemented method for hierarchical grouping of devices in a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform for one or more devices (see at least ¶ 24) comprises:
receiving device information for the one or more devices; (see at least ¶ 76, which teaches collecting device data from the devices)
receiving metadata related to network traffic flow for the one or more devices; (see at least ¶s 37,69, which teaches receiving and analyzing communication meta/data for the devices)
grouping the devices into a first hierarchical level based on any one or more of: the received device information, the received network traffic flow metadata, or a combination thereof; (see at least ¶ 70,76-83,101, which teaches grouping devices based on the communication data that is received and collected)
dynamically grouping the one or more devices within the group at the first hierarchical level into subgroups at a second hierarchical level based on learning communication behaviors of the devices within the said group using learning algorithm (see at least ¶s 40,55,99-101,121,122 which teaches dynamically grouping the devices into groups which includes devices in a group being further grouped into a subgroup of clusters based on behavior attributes of the devices, and see at least ¶s 40,54, which teaches using learning algorithms)
wherein parameters for the communication behavior include any one or more of: destination IP, destination port, protocol, data usage, time of the day, day of the week, device model, ratio of mobile originated (MO) traffic to mobile terminated (MT) traffic, and parameters derived from any one or more of the any one or more of the said parameters destination IP, the destination port, the protocol, the data usage, the time of the day, the day of the week, the device model, or the ratio of mobile originated (MO) traffic to mobile terminated (MT) traffic, (see at least ¶s 57,124, which teaches behavior attributes including device properties, data usage in bytes sent/received, destination IP, or destination port)
wherein a subset of the devices within the group at the first hierarchical level are dynamically grouped into a first subgroup at the second hierarchical level based on one or more first ones of the parameters for the communication behavior corresponding to learned behaviors of the subset of the devices; (see at least ¶s 121-124, which teaches dynamically grouping a subset of devices into a cluster/second hierarchical level based on the behavior attributes) and
detecting a device-level network anomaly based on comparing network traffic by the subset of the devices to the learned behaviors used to dynamically group the subset of the devices into the first subgroup (see at least ¶s 37,55,72,122,133, which teaches anomaly detection based on comparing observed communication values to learned behavior).
Akella teaches anomaly detection utilizing learning algorithms, but fails to explicitly teach using machine learning algorithm. However, Srinivas teaches performing network security anomaly detection on packet flows to and from sets of IoT devices (see Srinivas, at least Abstract and ¶ 6), and discloses parameters of communication behavior include any one of traffic type, time of usage, protocol data, and destination address, utilizing a machine trained learning engine (see Srinivas, at least ¶s 32-34,41-43). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akella based on the teachings of Srinivas for the purpose of ensuring secure and safe communications to and from IoT/client devices.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Akella, see at least ¶s 24,27,76, which teaches anomaly detection of groups of IoT devices via a SaaS service platform.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Srinivas, see at least ¶s 32-34,54, which teaches destination address and protocol data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akella based on the teachings of Srinivas in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1 above
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Akella, see at least ¶s 76-79, which teaches device grouping based on identified applications and services on the device.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Akella, see at least ¶s 131-132, which teaches device profiling to identify anomalies.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Akella, see at least ¶s 131-133, which teaches applying an analysis technique to the groups which includes extracting and updating group values.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Akella, see at least ¶ 24,27,29, which teaches anomaly detection of groups of IoT devices via a SaaS service platform.
Claims 8-21 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-7 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
February 5, 2026