DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to continuation application filed on July 23rd, 2024.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
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 07/23/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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).
Claims 1~20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~20 of U.S. Patent 12,107,830. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patent mentioned above recites similar limitations to claims 1~20 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the U.S Patent recites inserting data compliance metadata into packet headers of packets whereas claim 1 of the instant application recites generating data compliance metadata to be sent. The differences are similar/obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because inserting the data compliance metadata requires generating the metadata. Furthermore, claim 2 of the instant application recites the same limitation of “inserting” as recited in claim 1 of the U.S Patent above.
As such, the difference is not enough for the claims to be patentably distinct from each other. See table for comparison of claims 1 and 2 of the instant application and claim 1 of the U.S Patent.
Application: 18/780,780
U.S Patent 12,107,830
1. A method comprising: detecting a request to an application and/or application microservices for data; generating data compliance metadata to be sent in response to the request by the application and/or application microservices, the data compliance metadata comprising data-compliance indications associated with the data based on data compliance requirements; and causing packets and the data compliance metadata to be sent into a network so that one or more network devices or services in the network can read the data compliance metadata and apply packet handling policies.
1. A method performed using an application performance management agent running on an application and/or application microservices, the method comprising: detecting a request to the application and/or application microservices for data; inserting data compliance metadata into packet headers of packets that are to be sent in response to the request by the application and/or application microservices, the data compliance metadata comprising data-compliance markings associated with the data based on user/operator-defined data compliance requirements; and causing the packets to be sent into a network so that one or more network devices or services in the network can read the data compliance metadata and apply packet handling policies.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising inserting the data compliance metadata into packet headers of packets that are to be sent in response to the request by the application and/or application microservices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(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.
Claims 1~4, 6~14, and 16~19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. hereinafter Zheng (U.S 2007/0280112).
Regarding Claim 1,
Zheng taught a method of generating a synthetic network, the method comprising:
detecting a request to an application and/or application microservices for data [¶52, Fig. 2, if document (‘data”) exists, the document is discovered];
generating data compliance metadata to be sent in response to the request by the application and/or application microservices [¶52, determine if the document is created and if so, whether the author classifies the document, and if not classifying the document according to the detected sensitivity],
the data compliance metadata comprising data-compliance indications associated with the data based on data compliance requirements [¶97, pre-define a set of default classifications for a group of users; ¶98, examples of classifications include “Confidential,” “Company Confidential,” and/or military/government classification levels such as “Secret,” “Top Secret,” “Restricted Data,” “NOFORN”]; and
causing packets and the data compliance metadata to be sent into a network so that one or more network devices or services in the network can read the data compliance metadata and apply packet handling policies [¶54, L3/4 packet header associated with the document is tagged in accordance with the sensitivity classification. Subsequent flow of the document through the network is controlled according to the L3/4 sensitivity classification tags; ¶55, a network access control device (NACD) 136 such as a router, switch, gateway, firewall or the like at the periphery of network 100 will act based on the classifying L3/4 header tags to prevent egress of the document and onto the Internet, the World Wide Web].
Regarding Claim 2,
Zheng taught further comprising inserting the data compliance metadata into packet headers of packets that are to be sent in response to the request by the application and/or application microservices [¶54, L3/4 packet header associated with the document is tagged in accordance with the sensitivity classification].
Regarding Claim 3,
Zheng taught wherein the data compliance metadata is inserted at one or more of: Layer 3, Layer 4 and Layer 7 of the packet headers of the packet [¶54, L3/4 packet header associated with the document is tagged in accordance with the sensitivity classification].
Regarding Claim 4,
Zheng taught wherein the data compliance metadata is inserted in one or more of: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) headers at Layer 7, Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) header fields at Layer 4, and Internet Protocol (IP) Type of Service (ToS) bytes at Layer 3 [¶54, L3/4 packet header associated with the document is tagged in accordance with the sensitivity classification].
Regarding Claim 6,
Zheng taught wherein the packet handling policies are regional or organization-specific policies [¶98, “company confidential”; ¶101, company financial documents].
Regarding Claim 7,
Zheng taught wherein the packet handling policies include routing control, access control, and packet inspection [¶36, a process for tracking and controlling network content flow].
Regarding Claim 8,
Zheng taught wherein inserting data compliance metadata is based on operator-defined data compliance requirements for the data that is provided in response to the request [¶43, authors manually classify documents].
Regarding Claim 9,
Zheng taught further comprising: receiving operator-input that sets the data compliance requirements for data served by the application and/or application microservices [¶43, authors manually classify documents].
Regarding Claim 10,
Zheng taught further comprising: capturing details of individual transactions within the application and/or application microservices to provide visibility into data compliance requirements for an individual transaction [¶60, tracking module 31 keeps a record of where the protected documents (e.g., files) located, moved, copied].
Regarding Claims 6~14, and 16~19, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~4 and 6~10 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 15, and 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reache771d M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443