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 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the timestamp data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raney et al. US 20170099197.
Regarding claim 1, A method of preserving metadata in a tunneled packet for delivery to an end host (destination application, Figure 5, element 130) coupled to a monitoring network (a system is disclosed to monitor packet traffic that includes a first virtual machine (VM) host server configured to host one or more client applications operating within a client virtual machine platform with the one or more client applications being configured to generate network packets, the first VM host server is further configured to host a client packet monitor application, para. 0015, Figure 1), the method comprising: obtaining, by a network device in the monitoring network (tool packet monitor application includes one or more filters, Figure 3, element 314, client packet interface, element 320, which also includes a de-encapsulation engine, element 322, para. 0051), the tunneled packet having a tunneling header that includes the metadata; transcoding the metadata for insertion into an Ethernet frame (the client packet interface uses the de-encapsulation engine to remove encapsulation headers from the traffic of interest, the controller, element 312, also reads the classification tag within the encapsulation header and uses the tag-to-classification mapping data to determine the packet classification associated with the tag, para. 0051); and outputting the Ethernet frame, wherein the Ethernet frame includes the transcoded metadata and is destined for the end host (for GRE encapsulation and related classification tagging of monitored packets, packet, Figure 4, element 402, represents a packet received by a client packet monitor application which includes a packet header and a packet payload, and the packet can be formatted according to one or more network protocols such as Ethernet network protocols, para. 0057, the controller reads the classification tag within the encapsulation header and uses the tag-to-classification mapping data to determine the packet classification associated with the tag, where GRE headers are used, the de-encapsulation engine can remove GRE headers and use GRE destination identifiers within those header to identify one or more destination applications to receive that packet, para. 0052).
Regarding claim 2, The method defined in claim 1, wherein the Ethernet frame includes one or more header fields, wherein the metadata comprises a first value in a field of the tunneling header, and wherein transcoding the metadata comprises converting the first value into a second value for the one or more header fields of the Ethernet frame ((for GRE encapsulation and related classification tagging of monitored packets, packet, Figure 4, element 402, represents a packet received by a client packet monitor application which includes a packet header and a packet payload, and the packet can be formatted according to one or more network protocols such as Ethernet network protocols, para. 0057, the controller reads the classification tag within the encapsulation header and uses the tag-to-classification mapping data to determine the packet classification associated with the tag, where GRE headers are used, the de-encapsulation engine can remove GRE headers and use GRE destination identifiers within those header to identify one or more destination applications to receive that packet, para. 0052).
Regarding claim 3, The method defined in claim 2, wherein converting the first value into the second value comprises mapping the first value to the second value based on a lookup table (the controller reads the classification tag within the encapsulation header and uses the tag-to-classification mapping data to determine the packet classification associated with the tag, where GRE headers are used, the de-encapsulation engine can remove GRE headers and use GRE destination identifiers within those header to identify one or more destination applications to receive that packet, para. 0052).
Regarding claim 12, The method defined in claim 1 further comprising: outputting, by the network device, the tunneled packet toward computing equipment external to the network device and configured to provide a transcoding service, wherein the metadata is transcoded by the external computing equipment and the Ethernet frame is output by the external computing equipment (the management platform communicates classification/tag mapping data to the monitor application and to the destination application through one or more messages, the monitor application stores the mapping data as classification-to-tag data and the destination application stores the mapping data as tag-to-classification data, para. 0060, the monitor application applies one or more filters to received packet flows based upon the packet filter configuration information, analyzes the contents of received packets and classifies the packets, maps the packet classifications to packet tags using the classification-to-tag mapping data and the packets are then tagged with the identified tags and sent to the destination application through one or more messages, para. 0060).
Regarding claim 13, the method defined in claim 1, wherein the tunneling header comprises Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) header fields or Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) header fields (for GRE encapsulation and related classification tagging of monitored packets, packet, Figure 4, element 402, represents a packet received by a client packet monitor application which includes a packet header and a packet payload, and the packet can be formatted according to one or more network protocols such as Ethernet network protocols, para. 0057).
Regarding claim 19, The network device defined in claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the transcoding operation based on an egress interface at which the Ethernet frame is output (the de-encapsulated traffic can also be processed by one or more filters, Figure 3, element 314, to further select traffic of interest and/or desired tool destinations for the traffic of interest, the filtered traffic of interest is then provided to the tool interface, and is communicated to the one or more tool applications, para. 0052).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
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 (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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raney in view of Sinha et al. US 20140177428.
Regarding claim 4, The method defined in claim 2, Raney does not disclose wherein the one or more header fields of the Ethernet frame comprise fields of a Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) tag. Sinha discloses frames which are encapsulated frames and the processor de-capsulates the encapsulated frames to produce native Ethernet frames that are switched to the network management device via the second port, the encapsulated frame includes an original Ethernet header of an original Ethernet frame encapsulated within the encapsulated frame and an encapsulated Ethernet header of the encapsulated frame, the encapsulated Ethernet header includes as a destination address, a source address, a Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) tag, para. 0010. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Raney to include Sinha’s ethernet frames including VLAN tag. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to address customer complaints regarding specific network problems, para. 0008.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raney in view of Edison et al. US 20240430267
Regarding claim 11, The method defined in claim 1, Raney does not disclose wherein the timestamp data in the Ethernet frame is in a footer of the Ethernet frame. Edison discloses Ethernet data and items extracted from the header, footer, metadata, and/or payload portion of the traffic packet(s) may include all or a portion of a source email address, a recipient email address, a timestamp, para. 0059. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Raney to include Edison’s ethernet footer including a timestamp. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the ability to avoid and prevent cyber threats, such as hacking activities, data breaches, and cyberattacks by providing entities and users improved cybersecurity, para. 0015.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 15-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468