DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on April 2nd 2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Vela et al. US 2020/0169476 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Vela discloses:
processing device; and a memory device having logic (computer system with processor and memory – paragraph 27, Fig. 1) that enables the processing device to:
receive raw data from a network (BRI of raw data is just the body or “payload”, thus by receiving a packet, “raw data” is included because it is a subset of the whole packet), the raw data pertaining to a mobile communications involving a Network Element (NE) (BRI of NE is nearly any type of network device – see application Fig. 7; Vela receives captured packets – see paragraphs 5, 21 and Fig. 11; network includes wireless/mobile – paragraph 23; Vela also explicitly discloses that packets include “raw data” – see paragraph 28),
extract information from the raw data to obtain NE information defining a network element type and other information that characterizes the NE (generate network diagram that includes NE types based on data in captured packets – see Fig. 2, paragraph 21; also see paragraphs 28-29 which discloses analyzing raw data to create network snapshot), and
encode the NE information in a header of a standardized packet capturing file (use “PCAP” which is a standard packet capture format, enrich header data – paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 2, Vela discloses wherein the standard packet capturing file is a Packet Capture (PCAP) file (PCAP – paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 3, Vela discloses wherein the logic further enables the processing device to extract identification data from the raw data, and wherein the identification data includes a first set of parameters regarding a source component (IP packets include many identification data and parameters, e.g. source/destination, etc. – paragraph 27, Figs. 2-4; each packet is captured as “raw data” and then analyzed – see paragraph 28-29; thus the processing device extracts identification from the “raw data” as recited by the claim).
Regarding claim 4, Vela discloses wherein the identification data further includes a second set of parameters regarding a destination component (IP packets include many identification data and parameters, e.g. source/destination, etc. – paragraph 27, Figs. 2-4; each packet is captured as “raw data” and then analyzed – see paragraph 28-29; thus the processing device extracts identification from the “raw data” as recited by the claim).
Regarding claim 5, Vela discloses the identification data includes NE-identity information and technology-type information, wherein the NE-identity information includes an identifier assigned to the NE by a network operator associated with the network, and wherein the technology-type information defines a type of technology according to which the NE is operating (packets include network data/raw data that includes identity information and protocol information which is equivalent to technology-type information – paragraphs 28-29 and 44, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Vela discloses the header is a packet header, and wherein the logic further enables the processing device to construct the standardized packet capturing file by placing identification data in the packet header and placing the raw data as a payload in a packet following the packet header (this simply describes the conventional structure of a packet which is taught by Vela, PCAP – paragraph 21, IP packet – paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 11, Vela discloses store the raw data in memory (store in memory - paragraphs 21, 28, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Vela discloses display the NE information in human-readable form to allow a user to troubleshoot the network (abstract, Figs. 2-7).
Regarding claim 13, Vela discloses decode the NE information to determine NE-type, NE-technology, and NE identity that characterizes the NE (paragraphs 27-29, Figs. 2-6); and display the NE-type, NE-technology, and the NE identity in a human readable form on a user interface (abstract, paragraphs 5, 42, Figs. 1-10).
Regarding claim 14, it is a non-transitory medium that corresponds to claim 1, the corresponding features are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 14 also contains the limitations from claim 2 (e.g. PCAP file). This is also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, it is a combination of previously presented dependent claims three and four. Therefore, it is also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it corresponds to the system of claim 5; so it is also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is a method claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1; thus it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is a method claim that corresponds to the system of claim 13; thus it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vela.
Regarding claim 10, Vela teaches using IP but does not explicitly disclose the packet header is a 16-byte packet header configured in IPv6 address format. But this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Vela. Vela discloses using different Internet protocols (paragraph 3). IPv6 is extremely well-known, routine and conventional in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vela to use IPv6 as the version of IP. This is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result (i.e. more addresses).
Regarding claim 19, it is a method claim that corresponds to the system of claims 3, 9 and 10. The corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. The motivation to combine is the same as that given above.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vela in view of Patil et al. US 11,271,831 B2.
Regarding claim 6, Vela discloses structure the header to include NE-identity field, and a technology-type field; encode the NE-identity in the NE-identity filed; and encode the technology-type information in the technology type field (it is inherent that IP packets have headers with fields that include at least identity – address; and technology type – protocol; Vela also teaches PCAP which captures the entire packet including header and enhancing the header data – see paragraph 21).
Vela does not explicitly disclose the headers includes an NE-type field, and encode the NE-type in the NE-type field. But this is taught by Patil. Patil is directed to an intelligent packet capturing system on a wireless network (abstract, Fig. 1). It discloses capturing a wide variety of information including device type (col. 10 ln. 62 – col. 11 ln. 10, col. 12 ln. 30-34 and ln. 58-62; also see col. 17 ln. 30-42 and Fig. 3A explaining some of the additional header fields).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vela with the additional header information such as element/device type taught by Patil for the purpose of analyzing network traffic. Vela already discloses determining NE type based on the analysis of packet data (see Figs. 2-6). The additional information taught by Patil would merely enhance the capabilities of Vela.
Regarding claim 7, Vela does not explicitly disclose the NE-identity field is eight bytes, the NE-type field is one byte, and the technology-type filed is one byte. However this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Vela’s teaching of using IP and PCAP. An IP header is made up of fields that are variable in length but commonly the size of byte multiples. For example, addresses are four bytes, while the protocol field is one byte. So it would have been obvious to modify the header field sizes to be one byte or multiples of bytes as this is merely the incorporation of a ubiquitous and routine standard (i.e. standard IP header).
Regarding claim 8, Vela does not explicitly disclose encoding information using hexadecimal. But this is very well-known in the art and taught by Patil (header may be hexadecimal – col. 17 ln. 67 – col. 18 ln. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vela to use hexadecimal as taught by Patil. This is merely the incorporation of a very well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result (i.e. short version of a long number).
Regarding claim 17, it is a non-transitory medium claim that corresponds to the system of claims 6, 7. The corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons and the motivation to combine is the same as that given above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin US 2023/0180099 A1 discloses a wireless network that captures packets for analysis and uses PCAP and writes header data (abstract, Figs. 1, 4, paragraph 58).
M.R. et al. US 10,291,496 B1 discloses a network traffic monitoring system to perform packet capture (abstract).
Gage US 2016/0142321 A1 discloses IPv6 (abstract, Fig. 2), and that headers contain many field including device type, device class, ID, technology, etc. (paragraph 36).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458