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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite (emphasis added by examiner), “selecting, by a fifth device, the second device for preventing collection of the traffic information from the second device according to regularity of the network.” It is unclear to the examiner how exactly this limitation should be interpreted given its grammar and the usual definition of regularity (“the state or quality of being regular”). That is, “regular” can be considered a relative term with conflicting interpretation. For example, what is “regular” from one perspective may be irregular from other without any context or constraints applied to the term. It seems to the examiner “according to regularity of the network” might mean something akin to according to a schedule and will be interpreted as such, but that is not the literal interpretation of this limitation. In conclusion, the limitation requires rewording and/or explanation with regard to what it actually means so that it may be reasonable interpreted.
Claims 2, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-18 additionally use the term “regularity” and also have similar issues that will need to be addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubal et al (US Pub. No. 2016/0380865) in view of Sagara et al (US Pub. No. 2015/0304200), hereafter, “Sagara.”
As to claim 1, Dubal discloses a communication system comprising a processor configured to execute operations comprising:
transmitting, by a first device, traffic information, wherein the traffic information is previously received by the first device from a second device of a plurality of second devices over a network ([0060]-[0061], particularly, “Generally, there are various known methods for securely passing the Netflow data from the NIC to the Netflow export agent. In highly secure environments, the Netflow export agent could run on the NIC firmware so the Netflow data is not available to any host applications. Optionally, the Netflow export agent may be implemented separate from NIC 506 (not shown).” “Netflow export agent” reading on “first device”), “NIC” reading on “a second device” (see [0041] where there are more clearly a plurality of NICs), and “Netflow data” reading on “traffic information”),
collecting, by a third device, the transmitted traffic information of the network ([0060]-[0061], particularly, “In a block 616 the Netflow data that has been forwarded to the Netflow export agent is flushed to a Netflow collection agent, such as Netflow Collector collector 512. In the illustrated embodiment, Netflow export agent 510 forwards the Netflow data it has cached to Netflow collector 512 via UDP packets 530.” Netflow Collector 512 reading on “third device”).
receiving, by a fourth device associated with the second device of the plurality of second devices, the traffic information from the second device, and preventing transmission of the received traffic information to the first device ([0060], particularly, “In a block 608, a packet is received at Netflow data collection block 508, and a determination is made in a decision block 610 to whether a Netflow 7-tuple match is detected by comparing the 7-tuple field values in the packet header against the 7-tuple filters. As discussed above, the packet header field values may be extracted using a packet inspection logic that is separate from the Netflow collection agent, or packet inspection logic and the Netflow collection agent function may be incorporated into the same logic block. If there is a match, corresponding Netflow data is collected in a block 612.”; “a packet inspection logic that is separate from the Netflow collection agent” reading on “a fourth device” and “preventing transmission” occurs when there is no match against the 7-tuple filter);
stopping the fourth device corresponding to the selected second device from transmitting the traffic information to the first device ([0060], particularly, “In a block 608, a packet is received at Netflow data collection block 508, and a determination is made in a decision block 610 to whether a Netflow 7-tuple match is detected by comparing the 7-tuple field values in the packet header against the 7-tuple filters. As discussed above, the packet header field values may be extracted using a packet inspection logic that is separate from the Netflow collection agent, or packet inspection logic and the Netflow collection agent function may be incorporated into the same logic block. If there is a match, corresponding Netflow data is collected in a block 612.”; “a packet inspection logic that is separate from the Netflow collection agent” reading on “a fourth device” and “preventing transmission” occurs when there is no match against the 7-tuple filter).
However, Dubal does not explicitly disclose selecting, by a fifth device, the second device for preventing collection of the traffic information from the second device according to regularity of the network.
But, Sagara discloses selecting, by a first device, a second device for preventing collection of the traffic information from the second device according to regularity of the network (Fig. 8 and [0108]-[0110], particularly, “FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a sequence to control the transfer node 300 by the collection control node 100 to stop the collection information transmission process in the collection point of the transfer node 300.”; “control node” reading on “first device” and “transfer node” reading on “second device”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Dubal and Sagara in order to provide finer control over the data collection mechanism of the system that would enable more efficient use of network resources.
As to claims 4 and 5, they are rejected by similar rationale by that set forth in claim 1’s rejection.
As to claims 6 and 10, the combination of Dubal and Sagara as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose wherein the first device represents a transmission device, the second device represents a network device, the third device represents a collection device, the fourth device represents a transmission control device, and the fifth device represents a control device (Dubal, [0060]-[0061] and Sagara, [0108]-[0110]).
As to claims 8, 12, and 16, the combination of Dubal and Sagara as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the regularity of the network is based on routing information of the network (Sagara, [0108]-[0110]).
As to claims 9, 13, and 17, the combination of Dubal and Sagara as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the regularity of the network is based on a symmetry of a configuration of the network (Sagara, [0108]-[0110]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7, 11, 14, 15, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458