DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/660,377 filed on May 10th, 2024.
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.
Claim 1 is pending and herein considered.
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 05/10/2024, 05/17/2014, 02/06/2025, 09/22/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 1 of Patented Number 12,021,835 since the claim, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
Instant Application 18/660,377
U.S. Patent No. 12,021,835
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a threat intelligence gateway providing an interface between a protected network and an unprotected network, at least one policy probabilistic data structure and a plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures, wherein the at least one policy probabilistic data structure and the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures implement a plurality of packet filtering rules that were automatically created or altered based on malicious traffic information received from a plurality of cyber threat intelligence providers, and wherein at least two of the plurality of cyber threat intelligence providers are managed by different organizations;
testing, by the threat intelligence gateway and for each packet of a plurality of packets, the at least one policy probabilistic data structure to determine whether each packet of the plurality of packets is associated with at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules;
based on a determination that a first packet of the plurality of packets matches at least one packet matching criterion associated with the at least one policy probabilistic data structure, determining at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules;
testing, for the first packet and based on the at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules, at least one of the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures; and
based on the testing the at least one of the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures, filtering the first packet..
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a threat intelligence gateway providing an interface between a protected network and an unprotected network, at least one policy probabilistic data structure and a plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures, wherein the at least one policy probabilistic data structure and the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures implement a plurality of packet filtering rules that were automatically created or altered based on malicious traffic information received from a plurality of cyber threat intelligence providers, and wherein at least two of the plurality of cyber threat intelligence providers are managed by different organizations;
testing, by the threat intelligence gateway and for each packet of a plurality of packets, the at least one policy probabilistic data structure to determine whether each packet of the plurality of packets is associated with at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules;
based on a determination that a first packet of the plurality of packets matches at least one packet matching criterion associated with the at least one policy probabilistic data structure, determining at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules;
testing, for the first packet and based on the at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules, at least one of the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures; and
based on the testing the at least one of the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures, filtering the first packet.
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.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakumoto et al. (Wakumoto), U.S. Pub. Number 2018/0063084.
Regarding claim 1; Wakumoto discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a threat intelligence gateway providing an interface between a protected network and an unprotected network (par. 0057; fig. 4; packet 402 may be received at filter 410.), at least one policy probabilistic data structure and a plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures (pars. 0028 & 0059; a bloom filter 420 refers to a space-efficient probabilistic data structure that tests whether an element is a member of a set; a bloom filter may identify false positive matches, but does not identify false negatives.), wherein the at least one policy probabilistic data structure and the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures implement a plurality of packet filtering rules that were automatically created or altered based on malicious traffic information received from a plurality of cyber threat intelligence providers, and wherein at least two of the plurality of cyber threat intelligence providers are managed by different organizations (par. 0029; in case filter 110 determines that packet 102 is a defined packet type that may indicate a security risk, bloom filter 120 may receive the packet and determine whether the packet matches one of several different types of security vulnerabilities (e.g., a phishing attack, a known virus, a parasite, etc.); bloom filter 120 may receive the packet and determine whether the packet is from one of several originating sources that may indicate a security risk; for instance, the defined packet type is a DNS request, bloom filter may receive the packet and determine whether the packet is a request to access one of several domains.);
testing, by the threat intelligence gateway and for each packet of a plurality of packets, the at least one policy probabilistic data structure to determine whether each packet of the plurality of packets is associated with at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules (par. 0059; fig. 4; bloom filter 120 examines packet 402 to determine whether it is a matched packet or an unmatched packet.);
based on a determination that a first packet of the plurality of packets matches at least one packet matching criterion associated with the at least one policy probabilistic data structure, determining at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules (par. 0062; fig. 4; based on a determination that packet 402 is matched packet; bloom filter 420 may forward or send packet 402 to processing resource 430; processing resource 430 receives packet 402 from bloom filter 420, examines the packet to determine whether the packet is an exact match.);
testing, for the first packet and based on the at least one rule of the plurality of packet filtering rules, at least one of the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures (par. 0054; based on a determination that packet 402 is an exact match, processing resource 430 may drop packet 402; dropping packet 402 may invoke not sending the packet to its intended destination, as evidenced by its destination address.); and
based on the testing the at least one of the plurality of policy subset probabilistic data structures, filtering the first packet (par. 0035; in case bloom filter 120 determines that packet 102 is a matched packet because the packet matches one of several different types of security vulnerabilities in a bloom table, processing resource 130 may receive packet 102 and determine whether the packet is an exact match and thus matches a security vulnerability.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI V LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5087. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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.
/KHOI V LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436