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 .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is issued in response to the Amendment filed on 04/22/2026.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
3. a. The previous non-statutory double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in response to approved terminal disclaimer filed 04/22/2026.
b. The previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn in response to claim amendments.
c. Applicants’ arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “There is no disclosure or suggestion in Veteikis of detecting any possible network anomalies or any detection of any type of anomalies using data beyond packet contents…Veteikis is explicit to the scale of individual packets and packet contents, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to apply the teachings of Veteikis to flow data for flows that correspond to a device-circuit pair, as recited in the present claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is the combination of Kakadia and Veteikis’ teachings that makes the claims obvious. Kakadia discloses aggregating packet information associated with a traffic flow and a network segment and determine a network performance parameter associated with the traffic flow and the network segment based on the aggregated packet information (Fig.4 with associated text and paragraph [0014]: Network performance parameters may include per traffic flow, per segment metrics, such as a latency of a particular traffic flow over a particular segment, a quantity of packet drops of a particular traffic flow over a particular segment, a balance factor (e.g., a figure of merit capturing the extent to which multiple queues associated with network element 220 are aligned to the traffic pattern), or the like. Note: Network performance parameters could indicates of anomalies). Veteikis is used to show the teaching of using time difference to update a probability distribution model and Veteikis further teaches tracking anomalies in packet (as presented in pages 25 and 26 of Office Action dated 01/28/2026). Since Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakadia et al. (US 2015/0023170), hereinafter “Kakadia”, in view of Veteikis et al. (US 2013/0347103), hereinafter “Veteikis”.
Regarding claim 1, Kakadia discloses a computer implemented method for processing network flow data over a time series associated with a device-circuit pair, comprising:
receiving, by a server (Fig.1 with associated text, Network Analytics Device), flow data for one or more flows that correspond to the device- circuit pair (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0032]: “process 400 may include receiving packet information associated with a traffic flow (block 410). For example, network analytics device 250 may receive packet information, associated with a traffic flow of network 240, from network tap 210”);
calculating, by the server, a time difference for each flow of the one or more flows that correspond to the device-circuit pair (paragraphs [0040, 58, and 61]: latency-time difference- is calculated by comparing the timestamp associated with the packet information at the opening network tap and at the closing network tap);
based on the calculated time differences and the received flow data, [updating, by the server, a probability distribution model associated with the device-circuit pair]; determining, by the server, whether a time bucket, of the time series, is complete or open based on [the updated probability distribution model] (paragraph [0035]: “A time bucket, as used herein, may refer to a period of time during which packet information may be collected, stored, and/or grouped.” Paragraph [0036]: “network analytics device 250 may determine a period of time associated with collecting packet information in a particular time bucket, and may determine that the period of time has expired. The length of the period of time may be determined based on a network condition, such as network latency, packet delay, packet loss rate, or the like, in some implementations.” Latency-time difference- affects the length of the time bucket. Fig. 6B and associated text: multiple buckets belong to a time series.);
in response to determining that the time bucket is determined to be open, incorporating, by the server, further flow data that corresponds to the time bucket; and in response to determining that the time bucket is determined to be complete, ignoring, by the server, further flow data that corresponds to the time bucket and sending, by the server, flow data that corresponds to the time bucket to a detection module to detect possible network anomalies (Fig. 1 with associated text and paragraph [0014]: Network Analytics Device-detection module- and Central Network analytics Device receive and process packet information to determine performance information of traffic flow-anomalies. Fig. 4, blocks 430 -460 and associated text: when the period of time during which packet information is collected has expired, collected data is aggregated. Paragraph [0035]: “A time bucket, as used herein, may refer to a period of time during which packet information may be collected, stored, and/or grouped.” Paragraph [0036]: “network analytics device 250 may determine a period of time associated with collecting packet information in a particular time bucket, and may determine that the period of time has expired. The length of the period of time may be determined based on a network condition, such as network latency, packet delay, packet loss rate, or the like, in some implementations.” Latency-time difference- affects the length of the time bucket. Fig. 6B and associated text: multiple buckets belong to a time series.)
Kakadia does not explicitly disclose the time difference is used to update a probability distribution model. However, using time difference to update a probability distribution model is known in the art and Veteikis’ teaching is an example (paragraphs [0636-0642]: measurement of latency is represented using statistical method and latency boundaries of ranges are modified for one or more subsequent intervals, based at least in part on the average and standard deviation measured in the previous interval. Veteikis further discloses tracking anomalies in packet (paragraph [0006])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kakadia’s teaching of using time difference of flow data to determine whether a time bucket is complete or open to determine performance information of traffic flow with Veteikis’ teaching of using time difference to update a probability distribution model. The motivation to do so would be to obtain a more general data for a time interval.
Regarding claim 4, Kakadia and Veteikis disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the probability distribution model comprises flow data that corresponds to the device-circuit pair and time differences for flows that correspond to the device-circuit pair (Kakadia, paragraphs [0040, 58, and 61]: latency-time difference- is calculated by comparing the timestamp associated with the packet information at the opening network tap and at the closing network tap. Paragraph [0035]: “The time bucket may be used to group packet information collected over a period of time, and may allow packets that have experienced a higher latency to be collected.” Therefore, latencies-time differences- of plurality packets are collected during the time period. Veteikis, paragraphs [0636-0642]: measurement of latency is represented using statistical method.).
Regarding claim 5, Kakadia and Veteikis disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the updating the probability distribution model comprises: incorporating, by the server, the received flow data and the calculated time differences into the probability distribution model(this is obvious from claims 1 and 4 above); calculating, by the server, a mean value based on the time differences and the flow data included in the probability distribution model; and calculating, by the server, a standard deviation value based the time differences and the flow data included in the probability distribution model (Veteikis, paragraph [0636]: latency is expressed in average measured value-average value is a form of mean value); and calculating a standard deviation value based the time differences and the flow data included in the probability distribution model (Veteikis, paragraphs [0638] and [0642-643]: standard deviation from latency).
Regarding claim 6, Kakadia and Veteikis disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the determining whether the time bucket is complete or open comprises: calculating, by the server, a time delay value based on the standard deviation value; and determining, by the server, whether the time bucket is complete or open based on the time delay value and a file stamp time value of a network flow record containing the received flow data (Kakadia, paragraph [0036]: “network analytics device 250 may determine a period of time associated with collecting packet information in a particular time bucket, and may determine that the period of time has expired. The length of the period of time may be determined based on a network condition, such as network latency, packet delay, packet loss rate, or the like, in some implementations.” Veteikis, paragraphs [0638] and [0642-643]: standard deviation from latency. The combination of Kakadia and Veteikis’ teachings make it obvious that time delay value is based on the standard deviation value and time bucket is complete or open based the time delay value and a file stamp time value of a network flow record containing the received flow data.)
Regarding claim 7, Kakadia and Veteikis disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the calculating the time delay value comprises calculating, by the server, the time delay value based on the standard deviation value and the mean value (this is obvious from Kakadia and Veteikis’ teachings in claims 5 and 6 above).
Regarding claim 8, Kakadia and Veteikis disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the determining whether the time bucket is complete or open comprises: creating, by the server, an expiry time based on an end time of the time bucket and the calculated time delay value; determining, by the server, that the time bucket is complete if the file stamp time is beyond the created expiry time; and determining, by the server, that the time bucket is open if the file stamp time is not beyond the created expiry time (Kakadia, paragraph [0036]: “network analytics device 250 may determine a period of time associated with collecting packet information in a particular time bucket, and may determine that the period of time has expired. The length of the period of time may be determined based on a network condition, such as network latency, packet delay, packet loss rate, or the like, in some implementations.” Fig. 4, blocks 430 -460 and associated text: when the period of time during which packet information is collected has expired, collected data is aggregated.)
Regarding claim 9, Kakadia and Veteikis disclose the method of claim 4, wherein each of the time differences in the probability distribution model is a time difference between a start time of each flow in the probability distribution model and a file stamp time of a corresponding network flow record (Kakadia, paragraphs [0032-33]: packet which include timestamp is captured at opening network tap and closing network tap. Paragraphs [0040, 58, and 61]: latency-time difference- is calculated by comparing the timestamp associated with the packet information at the opening network tap and at the closing network tap.)
Claims 10 and 13-18 disclose similar subject matter as claims 1 and 4-9 respectively. Therefore, claims 10 and 13-18 are rejected as least for the same reasons as claims 1 and 4-9 respectively.
Claims 19-20 disclose similar subject matter as claims 1-2 respectively. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected as least for the same reasons as claims 1-2 respectively.
Prior Art of Record
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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 extension fee 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 THANH T. LE whose telephone number is (571)270-0279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THANH T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights