DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, and 10 are presented for consideration.
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) 1-4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. [ US Patent Application No 2019/0230126 ], in view of Narayanaswamy et al. [ US Patent Application No 2011/0055921 ].
As per claim 1, Kumar discloses the invention as claimed including a network node comprising:
a communication circuit; a memory; and a processor operatively connected to the communication circuit and the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive, from a server [ 193, Figure 1; and paragraphs 0021, and 0034 ], a data flow information including a node IP, a destination network IP, and port information [ i.e. flow may represent by set of packets having network layer information and transport layer information ] [ Figure 3; and paragraph 0050 ], the data flow information being generated by the server to permit establishment of a TCP session between a source node and a destination network [ i.e. configuring a whitelist set of flow entries and sending configuration information to the flow-based forwarding element, the whitelist set may include a first flow entry specifying match fields and a first action to allow communication over the allowed forwarding path ] [ Figure 4; Abstract; and paragraphs 0035, 0050, 0051, and 0089 ];
monitor a data packet broadcast or multicast from the source node through a switch of a network to which the source node belongs [ i.e. handling broadcast packets ] [ paragraphs 0037, 0038, and 0068-0070 ]; and
wherein the network node is connected to the switch to monitor the data packet and perform the blocking or termination based on the data flow information received from the server [ i.e. absence of any matching flow entry in the whitelist set automatically causes a flow-based forwarding element to block communication over the forbidden forwarding path ] [ paragraphs 0035, 0054, 0062, and 0065 ].
Kumar does not specifically disclose
transmit an IP blocking data packet to the source node when there is no data flow received from the server corresponding to a source IP of the data packet received through the monitoring; or transmit a TCP data packet for forcibly terminating a TCP session to the source node when there is no data flow received from the server corresponding to a destination IP and destination port information of the data packet received through the monitoring.
Narayanaswamy discloses
transmit an IP blocking data packet to the source node when there is no data flow received from the server corresponding to a source IP of the data packet received through the monitoring [ i.e. packets being dropped and send close session message to one or more participants ] [ paragraphs 0070, and 0097 ]; or transmit a TCP data packet for forcibly terminating a TCP session to the source node when there is no data flow received from the server corresponding to a destination IP and destination port information of the data packet received through the monitoring [ i.e. close the communication session for the client, sends a close session message to the client, comprise TCP/IP close session messages ] [ paragraphs 0011, 0069, and 0101 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kumar and Narayanaswamy because the teaching of Narayanaswamy would enable to provide a three-stage analysis of communication sessions to identify and protect against network flood attacks occurring in the communication sessions [ Narayanaswamy, paragraph 0008 ].
As per claim 2, Kumar discloses wherein the processor is configured to: prevent an access control application of the source node from transmitting a data packet to a destination network by removing a data flow, when a data flow removal request is received from the server [ i.e. drop or block communication ] [ paragraphs 0060, 0062, and 0065 ].
As per claim 3, Kumar discloses wherein the processor is configured to: transmit a collected data packet blocking log to the server at regular intervals in response to detecting a data packet blocking log update event for data packet blocking log synchronization [ i.e. update flow tables ] [ paragraphs 0028, and 0055-0057 ].
As per claim 4, Kumar discloses wherein the data packet blocking log update event includes IP blocking or forcedly terminating the TCP session, and wherein the data packet blocking log includes a node IP address, a destination IP address, and port information, which are blocked [ Figure 4; and paragraphs 0033, and 0051 ].
7. As per claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Szabo [ US Patent Application No 2002/0138618 ] discloses simplified method for processing multiple connections from the same client
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446