DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twigg et al.. (U.S. 2023/0075355 A1) in view of McDowall et al. (U.S. 2022/0385631 A1).
Re claim 1,Twigg et al. disclose an apparatus for dynamic control of a network, the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a storage medium recording one or more programs configured to be executable by the processor, wherein the one or more programs include instructions for executing (e.g. Figures 1-9): collecting network monitoring information (e.g. page 6, par. [0104]); determining, based on the network monitoring information, whether a network abnormality condition is satisfied (e.g. pages 32-33, par. [0619-0620]; and loading, based on a result of the determination, an extended Berkeley packet filter (eBPF) program controlling a network environment (e.g. page 40, par. [0721-0722]).
Twigg et al. fail to disclose an extended Berkeley packet filter (eBPF) program controlling a network environment by at least one of changing a network bandwidth, changing a routing path, generating a processing time notification, and executing QoS.
However, McDowall et al. disclose an extended Berkeley packet filter (eBPF) program controlling a network environment by at least one of changing a network bandwidth, changing a routing path, generating a processing time notification, and executing QoS(e.g. Figures 3A and 6; page 5 para. [0060], wherein the packet is intercepted at the eBPF and the packet is reroute it to the original destination). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of claimed invention to add the extended Berkeley packet filter (eBPF) program controlling a network environment by changing a routing path as seen in McDowall et al.’s invention into Twigg et al.’s invention because it would providing distributed traffic steering and enforcement for a security solution.
Re claim 2, Twigg et al. further disclose setting the network abnormality condition, and mapping the eBPF program to the network abnormality condition (e.g. page 4, par. [0721-0722]).
Re claim 3, Twigg et al. further disclose the determining whether the network abnormality condition is satisfied includes: detecting one or more events included in the network monitoring information, and determining whether the one or more events satisfy the network abnormality condition (e.g. page 40, par. [0721-0722]).
Re claim 4, Twigg et al. further disclose the network abnormality condition is set based on at least one of a round trip time (RTT) increase rate, a packet retransmission rate, and an inter-packet delay change rate (e.g. page 40, par. [0722]).
Re claim 9, Twigg et al. further disclose before the collecting the network monitoring information, receiving a packet including identification information, and determining whether a flow of the packet has been generated (e.g. Abstract, page 6, par. [0104-0105]).
Re claim 10, Twigg et al. further disclose determining whether the flow of the packet has been terminated, after the loading the eBPF program (e.g. page 7, par. [0113]; pages 39-40, par. [0716, 0721, and 0722]).
Re claims 11-14, 19, and 20, they are method claims having similar limitations cited in claims 1-4, 9, and 10 respectively. Thus, claims 11-14, 19, and 20 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 1-4, 9, and 10 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, and 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.
U.S. 2022/0385631 A1
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451