DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8 are subject under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 line 6 and 8, applicant is claiming “the network traffic appliance” which seems to refer back to “network traffic appliance means” in line 4. Applicant is suggested to change it to “the “network traffic appliance means”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for receiving…means for adjusting…means for installing…means for running, means for analyzing, means for correlating in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 11075818 B2 because they are obvious variant.
Instant Application 18587067
Patent (US 11075818 B2)
An apparatus to improve
efficiency of sending and receiving network traffic in a network having to a plurality of computing devices based on data analysis of the network traffic in a network that includes the computing devices coupled to a network traffic appliance means that routes data to and from the computing devices, the apparatus comprising:
means for receiving a recommendation from the network traffic appliance based
on selected network traffic data, wherein to generate and transmit the
recommendation, the network traffic appliance includes code that when
executed causes the network traffic appliance to perform operations comprising:
means for adjusting a policy based on the recommendation to improve the efficiency of the sending and receiving of network traffic to the plurality of computing devices, wherein the recommendation is generated by at least:
means for installing a module manager means and a plurality of plug-in network traffic analysis module means on a network traffic recommendation engine for execution by the network traffic appliance means,
during operation the module manager means manages the network traffic analysis modules, wherein managing the network traffic analysis modules includes determining which network traffic analysis means the traffic management appliance means executes, determining when to execute the network traffic analysis means, and storing configuration information of the network traffic analysis means;
the module manager means and the plurality of network traffic analysis means are distinct from policies that manage network traffic; and
the network traffic management appliance means (i) includes one
or more application program interfaces (APIs) to provide access to and from the network analysis modules and (ii)
includes architecture to provide the plurality of network analysis modules access to data from one or more systems via the APIs;
means for running the network traffic analysis module means to obtain selected network traffic data on the network;
means for analyzing the selected network traffic data via the network traffic analysis module means;
means for correlating the network traffic data from a plurality of systems included in the network to extend data analysis of the selected network traffic data;
means for generating the recommendation from the analysis of the selected network traffic data; and
means for providing the recommendation to the data processing system.
Outputting a recommendation based on the selected network traffic data implies generation of recommendation in order to provide or output recommendation.
1.A method of analyzing data on network traffic in a network having a plurality of computing devices coupled to a traffic management appliance that routes network traffic data to and from the computing devices, the method comprising:
executing one or more commands via a network traffic recommendation engine to install a module manager and a plurality of network traffic analysis modules on a network traffic recommendation analysis engine of a traffic management appliance wherein;
adjusting a policy based on the recommendation to improve the efficiency of the sending and receiving of network traffic to the plurality of computing devices
wherein managing the network traffic analysis modules includes determining which network traffic analysis modules the traffic management appliance executes, determining when to execute the network traffic analysis modules, and storing network traffic analysis modules configuration information;
the module manager and the plurality of network traffic analysis modules are distinct from policies that manage network traffic;
the traffic management appliance includes one or more application program interfaces (APIs) to provide access to and from the network analysis modules; and the recommendation analysis engine has an architecture to provide the plurality of network analysis modules access to data from one or more systems via the APIs
running the plurality of network traffic analysis modules to obtain selected network traffic data on the network;
analyzing the selected network traffic data via the network traffic analysis module;
correlating the network traffic data from a plurality of systems included in the network to extend a universe of data analysis of the selected network traffic data;
outputting a recommendation based on the selected network traffic data.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is one of an improved configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is one of an improved configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the recommendation to a user.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the recommendation to a user.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis means correlates data from a plurality of systems including the network to extend the universe of data analysis.
Claim 1, correlating the network traffic data from a plurality of systems included in the network to extend a universe of data analysis of the selected network traffic data.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis means is one of a plurality of network traffic analysis means installed on the network traffic recommendation engine, each
of the network traffic analysis means obtaining selected network traffic data from the network and outputting a recommendation.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis module is one of a plurality of network traffic analysis modules installed on the network traffic recommendation engine, each of the network traffic analysis modules obtaining selected network traffic data from the network and outputting a recommendation.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising a scheduling manager for selecting one or more network traffic analysis means to be executed before another network traffic analysis means based on the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis means.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising a scheduling manager for selecting one or more network traffic analysis modules to be executed before another network traffic analysis module based on the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis modules.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective network traffic analysis means.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective network traffic analysis module.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis means interfaces with a database via a data interface API.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis module interfaces with a database via a data interface API.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAMIT KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5665. The examiner can normally be reached 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, NOEL BEHARRY can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/PAMIT KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2416
