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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 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, 3-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite extracting, correlating data, comparing, and determining data. Other than reciting a network traffic analysis device, one or more processors, memory, and a storage medium nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind with some mathematics.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “ha[s] treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.” Elec. Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Here, the type of data being manipulated does not render the idea less abstract.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the aforementioned elements at a high-level of generality, amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Storing data, presenting output information, receiving feedback, and updating stored data are extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As aforementioned regarding the failure to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
The dependent claims merely set forth additional details of the abstract idea and also fail to recite additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered.
The applicant argues a number of features including vectorization of reference datasets and query communication flows to generate similarity scores, entry alignment and weighted cost tallying, DIAMETER, RTP, SIP, HTTP2, NGAP, NAS-5GS, PFCP, specific protocols involved (DIAMETER, RTP, SIP, HTTP2, NGAP, NAS-5GS, PFCP), specific types of features extracted (e.g., sequence, forward and backward messages, errors, failure indications, missing messages, delays, etc. (Resp. 13-20.) The claims, however, omit these features.
They argue that claim 1 is substantially similar in structure and subject matter to Example 47. (Resp. 16.) They have not compared the limitation of each to each other.
The applicant argues that the adaptive feedback mechanism constitutes enables the computer system to maintain accuracy as networks evolve, whereas static systems degrade over time. (Resp. 15-16.) "'[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. . . . [T]he name of the game is the claim. . . .'" In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of ClaimsAmerican Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). Here, the claims merely recite “presenting” generic, undefined “output information” somehow “based on” candidate labels, whatever that means. Generic, undefined “feedback” is received “responsive to” the presenting. Updating is performed “according to” the feedback. Such recitations devolve to extra-solution activity.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20230289444 process log data into traffic patterns, using call graph normalization and aggregation (abs.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457