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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 states “detect the correlation between the first embedding vector and the second embedding”. It appears “vector” is missing from the “second embedding”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the examiner applies the guidance under MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system (ie. machine).
Claims 11-18 are directed to a method (ie. process).
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to an article of manufacture.
As an example, independent claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 states “responsive to a determination that there is not a match between the first information and stored exchange information in a second database, generate, using a machine learning model, a first embedding vector corresponding to the first plurality of network attributes”, “identify a second embedding vector of a second data packet exchange based on a correlation between the first embedding vector and the second embedding vector in a vector space, the second embedding vector corresponding to second information of the second data packet exchange, the second information including a second plurality of network attributes associated with the second data packet exchange”, and “responsive to identification of the second embedding vector, determine that one or more network attributes are included in the first information and absent from the second information”.
The claim places no limits on how the determination (determine) is performed. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determination” and “determine” encompasses a human mentally comparing data. Therefore, these claim limitations fall within the Mental Process Grouping for evaluation/observation of comparing data, which can be reasonably performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. The step “identify” a close match could be a mental step of comparing data (observation) or a mathematical calculation. The step after the first determination of “generating” is a mathematical calculation of a vector. Therefore, these claim limitations, also, fall within the Mathematical Concept Grouping.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim recites the following additional elements:
Independent claim 1 states “A system comprising: a network monitoring device connected to a communications network, the network monitoring device configured to monitor network traffic transmitted to and from a server across the communications network, the network monitoring device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory, the memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to”.
These are additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“retrieve, from a first database, first information of a first data packet exchange, the first information including a first plurality of network attributes associated with the first data packet exchange”.
“retrieve” is additional elements that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, receiving (“retrieving”) in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“generate an entry in the second database to include the first information and a flag to indicate the determination that the one or more network attributes are included in the first information and absent from the second information”.
“generate an entry” is an insignificant post-solution activity and an additional element that is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The “generate an entry in the second database” in the context of this claim encompasses store data (MPEP 2106.05(f)). This step is not performed by a particular machine nor in a non-conventional way and therefore, this limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Storing data in a database merely requires the writing to a database and does not require the data to be retrieved in a nominal manner (“Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated”, MPEP 2106.05(g)) . Additionally, the type of information stored in the database generally links the abstract idea to the technological area of networking without providing an improvement to the network itself. As such, the “generate” step fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
These limitations of “retrieving” and “generate” merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) The claims merely instructions on how to reduce data storage. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step B: These additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
The “A system comprising: a network monitoring device… ” claim limitation merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The “retrieving” claim limitations (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL/ Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607,610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims largely recite the use of generic technology using standard methods.
The “generate an entry in the second database” claim limitation is a limitation to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)). The claims merely instructions on how to reduce data storage. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more.
Even when all the elements are considered individually and in ordered combination, they do not amount of significantly more because the additional elements merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. computer networks). The claims require a specific implementation to improve how those functions are carried out. The claims do not recite any improvement to the technical field.
Independent claims 11 (process) and 19 (article of manufacture) have similar claim limitations as claim 1 without having additional claim limitations. Therefore, claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 101.
Claims 8 and 18 state updating “responsive to the determination of the one or more network attributes, a list that includes previously detected network attributes to include the one or more network attributes” and transmit “the list to a computing device configured to present the list via a user interface”. These claim limitations are about updating and transmitting this list. These broad steps are extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution activity of transmitting data. More specific claim limitations towards updating and transmitting may show an improvement to a computer or other technology, with support from the instant specification, and may amount to more than “apply it”. As of now, these limitations are further explained within Step 2A (Prong 2) and Step 2B and would be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sade et al. [PGUB 20150200821] describes session monitoring with a transient agent.
Achleitner et al. [PGPUB 2022/0368701] describes using weighted vectors for traffic patterns of network sessions.
Trivedi et al. [PGPUB 2024/0357410] describes using AI models for traffic management.
D-Agostino et al. [PGPUB 20250310280] describes compares session vectors within a database.
Sumanth et al. [PGPU?B 2025/0337641] describes monitoring network service attributes for anomaly detection.
Parandelhgheibi et al. [PGPUB 2016/0359740] describes calculating a feature vector based on flow attributes.
Kuarsingh et al. [PGPUB 2022/0038454] describes comparing session connections.
Walters et al. [PGPUB 2024/0126923] describes a database storing vectors associated with records.
Wilkinson et al. [PGPUB 2013/0163438] describes comparing vectors, from network events, to have a presence score.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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 CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights