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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process.
Re claim 1, a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first packet addressed to a destination node; checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period; in response to the threshold exceeding the packet counter, sending the first packet to an intermediate node, the intermediate node configured to route the first packet to a destination substrate address of the destination node; and in response to the packet counter exceeding the threshold, sending, by the computing device, the first packet to the destination substrate address.
Under Prong I step 2A, the italic limitations “checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold” and routing accordingly is drawn to mental process/mathematical relationship. This is a basic logic exercise of comparing numbers and making decision, which can be performed by a human mind or with pen and paper. The concept of counting and changing a delivery method is relating to the organizing human activity. Under Prong II step 2A, the other non-italic limitations in the claims including computing device, packet counter and destination node are considered as additional elements however, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements including computing device, packet counter and destination node are merely generalized high level of generality and the method describe routine network function such as receiving, counting, and forwarding packets are using the generic component to perform their standard roles. There is no technical solution to a specific technical problem; rather, it is the use of a computer to automate an abstract decision making process. Under step 2B, these additional elements individually or in combination is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements including computing device, packet counter and destination node are merely generalized high level of generality and the method describe routine network function such as receiving, counting, and forwarding packets are using the generic component to perform their standard roles MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f).
Re claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, these claims are similarly analyzed and rejected for being directed to an abstract idea of “Mental Process/Mathematical Relationship” and “Organizing Human Activity” without significantly more as detailed in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 above. In particular, there are additional elements in these claims however these additional elements including computing device, packet counter and destination node are merely generalized high level of generality and the method describe routine network function such as receiving, counting, and forwarding packets are using the generic component to perform their standard roles MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f).
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton (U.S. 2021/0112091 A1) in view of Ronen et al. (U.S. 2003/0101357 A1).
Re claim 1, Compton discloses in Figures 1-6 a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first packet addressed to a destination node (e.g. abstract, Figures 2 with traffics from the network and paragraphs [0006-0007]); and
in response to the packet counter exceeding the threshold (e.g. paragraph [0032]), sending the first packet to an intermediate node, the intermediate node configured to route the first packet to a destination substrate address of the destination node and in response to the packet counter exceeding the threshold, sending, by the computing device, the first packet to the destination substrate address (e.g. paragraphs [0026, 0029-0030, 0035-0038, and 0062] wherein mitigation rules are determined to handle the detected traffics).
Compton fails to disclose in Figures 1-6 checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period.
However, Ronen et al. disclose the step of checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period (e.g. paragraph [0022, 0046, 0048, and 0062] where abnormal traffic is determined based on the packet counts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period as seen in Ronen et al.’s invention into Compton’s invention because it would enable to isolate and prevent denial service attack.
Re claim 8, it is a computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 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 as well as overcoming the double patenting and 35 USC 101 rejection.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No 12,107,761. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,761 contains every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and thus anticipated the claims of the instant application. Claim of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-10868758-B1
US-12294521-B1
US-12413523-B1
US-20240214416-A1
US-20260052589-A1
US-20210112091-A1
US-20030101357-A1
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