DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/872,804 filed on June 12, 2026, has been entered. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3 and 4 are currently amended. New Claim 7 is added. Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending and are examined.
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments with respect to the objection to the claims for minor informalities have been fully considered by the examiner. As new informalities are introduced by the amendment, the objection to the claims for minor informalities is maintained.
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered by the Examiner but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by the amendment, set forth in this Office Action.
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not persuasive.
Specifically, on page 8 of the response filed June 12, 2026, in reference to the “acquiring” steps recited in the claims, Applicant argues, “The additional limitations are not abstract idea grouping because it is impractical for the human mind to perform, by use of pen and paper or by applying the generic computer to acquire interface statistical data as telemetry data from a network device. It is also impractical for the human mind to further acquire flow statistical data by sampling data packets and header information of the data packets sampled.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is conflating the additional limitations with the limitations that recite the abstract idea of a mental process. As described in further in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action, the steps of ‘calculating’ and ‘creating’ recited in the claims are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III.
Continuing, on page 8 of the response filed June 12, 2026, Applicant additionally argues, “These limitations are not insignificant extra-solution activities because acquiring the interface statistical data and the flow statistical data is integral part of creating and presenting a total amount of traffic for a data flow through the network device.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “acquiring” steps recited in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) I and Claim 2 of Example 40 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Finally, on pages 8-9 of the response filed June 12, 2026, Applicant additionally argues, “The additional limitations, in the claim as a whole, describe improvement to a technical field of creating and presenting statistical data of a data flow of an application over a network. In particular, Specification provides, ‘the present invention has an effect that it is possible to estimate the grand total amount of traffic for each flow on the basis of statistical information for each [interface] collected by telemetry and flow statistical information of sampled header samples without collecting header samples of all packets.’ Specification, at para. [0010]. The present technology addresses an issue of estimating traffic of a data flow with accuracy by, in addition to collecting telemetry data, collecting sampled packets, not all packets, to analyze header information. Effectively, the present technology enables avoiding detrimental impacts on network performance from collecting all packets for header analysis. Specification, at para. [0007] - [0009]. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the present case describes improvement to a technology and not improvement to abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. During examination, the specification and claims should be evaluated “to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). While paragraphs [0007]-[0011] of the specification describe the improvement asserted by Applicant, there is nothing recited in the claims that suggests that a grand total amount of traffic for each flow (i.e., “a fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device”) is calculated using header information collected from anything less than all packets, i.e., “without collecting header samples of all packets”. Accordingly, the asserted improvement cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is maintained.
The amendment to Claims 1, 3 and 4 has overcome the rejection of Claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 12, 2026. The rejection of Claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Paragraph [0043] of the instant specification states, in part:
“Next, the first calculation unit 232 calculates the grand total amount α of traffic of the application k in the NW device in the representative area by using the total traffic amount Sa of all the flows, the total traffic amount Sk of the application k, and the grand total amount (bytes) XA of traffic of the IF concerned calculated in paragraph number 0035 (emphasis added).”
Continuing, paragraph [0048] of the instant specification states, in part:
“Subsequently, the second calculation unit 233 calculates the grand total amount a' of traffic of the application k in the NW device in the other area by using the grand total amount α of traffic of the application kin the NW device in the representative area described above, the grand total amount XA of traffic for each IF in the NW device in the representative area described above, and the grand total amount YB of traffic for each IF in the NW device in the other area, which are calculated by the first calculation unit 232 (emphasis added).”
In view of the specification, the word “creating”, recited in the “creating and presenting...” steps of Claims 1, 3 and 4, is interpreted as “calculating”.
For examination purposes, particularly the SME evaluation, the “creating and presenting” steps recited in the Claims are evaluated individually as separate “creating” and “presenting” steps.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 1, the term “a respective interface” recited in lines 11-12 should be “the respective interface”;
regarding Claim 3, the term “a respective interface” recited in lines 10-11 should be “the respective interface”; and
regarding Claim 4, the term “a respective interface” recited in lines 12-13 should be “the respective interface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “acquiring interface statistical data and flow statistical data over a network, wherein the interface statistical data as telemetry data comprise statistical information of a respective interface of a plurality of interfaces acquired from a network device, the flow statistical data comprise statistical information of a data flow of a plurality of data flows calculated based on header information of sampled packets of the plurality of data flows captured by the network device, and the sampled packets represent a part of packets of the data flow” in lines 3-9. Given the lack of punctuation and run-on sentence structure, it is unclear whether statistical information or an interface(s) is “acquired from a network device”, rendering the claim indefinite.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites the limitation “calculating, based on the flow statistical data of the sampled packets of the data flow, a second total amount of traffic of the sampled packets of a data flow of the plurality of data flows and a third total amount of traffic of the sampled packets of the plurality of data flows” in lines 13-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the sampled packets of the data flow” in the claim.
Continuing, Claim 1 recites the limitation “calculating, based on said another interface statistical data, another total amount of traffic for the respective interface in said another network device” in lines 13-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the respective interface in said another network device” in the claims.
Dependent Claim 7 is rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of its dependence thereon.
For examination purposes, in view of the limitation of Dependent Claim 7, “acquired from a network device” is interpreted as referring to an interface(s).
Insofar as they recite similar claim elements, Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 5 and 6 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claims 3 and 4 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, Claim 5 recites the limitation “calculating the grand total amount of traffic for each flow in a network device in an arbitrary area other than a representative area on a basis of the grand total amount of traffic for each interface and the grand total amount of traffic for each flow in a network device in the representative area and the grand total amount of traffic for each interface in the network device in the arbitrary area” in lines 3-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the grand total amount of traffic for each flow” and “the grand total amount of traffic for each interface” in the claims. More generally, the relationship between “the grand total amount of traffic for each flow”, “the grand total amount of traffic for each interface”, “an arbitrary area” and “a representative area” recited in Claim 5 and “a second total amount of traffic of the sampled packets of a data flow”, a first total amount of traffic for the respective interface” and “a predetermined area of the network device” recited in Claim 3 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 6 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Additionally, Claim 6 recites the limitation “The computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 4 wherein the traffic monitoring method further comprising” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the traffic monitoring method” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the traffic monitoring method” is interpreted as “the traffic monitoring program”.
Additionally, Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the data flow of the plurality of data flows represents a flow of data transmitted by a predetermined application, and the data transmitted by the predetermined application is according to the respective interface of the plurality of interfaces acquired from the network device” in lines 1-4. Given the lack of punctuation and run-on sentence structure, it is unclear whether the data itself or the transmission of data by the predetermined application is “according to the respective interface of the plurality of interfaces acquired from the network device”, rendering the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes, “according to the respective interface of the plurality of interfaces acquired from the network device” is interpreted as referring to the transmission of the data by the predetermined application.
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 and 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations, “calculating, based on the interface statistical data, a first total amount of traffic of a respective interface”, “calculating, based on the flow statistical data of the sampled packets of the data flow, a second total amount of traffic of the sampled packets of a data flow of the plurality of data flows and a third total amount of traffic of the sampled packets of the plurality of data flows”, “creating..., based on a product of the first total amount of traffic of the respective interface and a ratio of the second total amount of traffic of the sampled packets of the data flow over the third total amount of traffic, a fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device”, “calculating, based on said another interface statistical data, another total amount of traffic for the respective interface in said another network device”, and “creating and presenting, based on the first total amount of traffic for the respective interface, the fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device, and said another total amount of traffic for the respective interface in said another network device, another total amount of traffic for another data flow through said another network device outside the predetermined area”, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, recite steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, i.e., the recited limitations are mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3 and 4 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One Analysis).
As currently recited, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional limitations, “acquiring interface statistical data and flow statistical data over a network, wherein the interface statistical data as telemetry data comprise statistical information of a respective interface of a plurality of interfaces acquired from a network device, the flow statistical data comprise statistical information of a data flow of a plurality of data flows calculated based on header information of sampled packets of the plurality of data flows captured by the network device, and the sampled packets represent a part of packets of the data flow”, “...presenting, based on a product of the first total amount of traffic of the respective interface and a ratio of the second total amount of traffic of the sampled packets of the data flow over the third total amount of traffic, a fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device”, “acquiring another interface statistical data as another telemetry data from another network device over the network, wherein said another network device is outside a predetermined area of the network device”, and “...presenting, based on the first total amount of traffic for the respective interface, the fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device, and said another total amount of traffic for the respective interface in said another network device, another total amount of traffic for another data flow through said another network device outside the predetermined area” are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely add insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering and data output respectively, to the abstract idea, that does not meaningfully limit the practicing of the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements, “[a] traffic monitoring device” comprising “a processor” recited in Claim 1 and “[a] computer-readable non-transitory medium” recited in Claim 4, merely suggest performance of the steps of acquiring and calculating using a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). While the specification asserts an improvement in technology, “the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). In the present case, there is nothing recited in the claims that suggests that a grand total amount of traffic for each flow (i.e., “a fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device”) is calculated using header information collected from anything less than all packets, i.e., “without collecting header samples of all packets”. Accordingly, the asserted improvement cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Therefore, Claims 1, 3 and 4 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong Two Analysis).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the additional limitations, “acquiring interface statistical data and flow statistical data over a network, wherein the interface statistical data as telemetry data comprise statistical information of a respective interface of a plurality of interfaces acquired from a network device, the flow statistical data comprise statistical information of a data flow of a plurality of data flows calculated based on header information of sampled packets of the plurality of data flows captured by the network device, and the sampled packets represent a part of packets of the data flow”, “...presenting, based on a product of the first total amount of traffic of the respective interface and a ratio of the second total amount of traffic of the sampled packets of the data flow over the third total amount of traffic, a fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device”, “acquiring another interface statistical data as another telemetry data from another network device over the network, wherein said another network device is outside a predetermined area of the network device”, and “...presenting, based on the first total amount of traffic for the respective interface, the fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device, and said another total amount of traffic for the respective interface in said another network device, another total amount of traffic for another data flow through said another network device outside the predetermined area”, asserted as amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering and data output, in the Step 2A, are recited at a high level of generality and represent functions that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field when claimed in a merely generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The additional elements, “[a] traffic monitoring device” comprising “a processor” recited in Claim 1 and “[a] computer-readable non-transitory medium” recited in Claim 4, respectively, amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually. While the specification asserts an improvement in technology, “the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). In the present case, there is nothing recited in the claims that suggests that a grand total amount of traffic for each flow (i.e., “a fourth total amount of traffic for the data flow through the network device”) is calculated using header information collected from anything less than all packets, i.e., “without collecting header samples of all packets”. Accordingly, the claimed limitations do not provide an inventive concept whether considered individually or as an ordered combination. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Therefore, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B Analysis). Accordingly, Claims 1, 3 and 4 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 5 and 6 recite a limitation, “calculating the grand total amount of traffic for each flow in a network device in an arbitrary area other than a representative area on a basis of the grand total amount of traffic for each interface and the grand total amount of traffic for each flow in a network device in the representative area and the grand total amount of traffic for each interface in the network device in the arbitrary area”, that is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, i.e., the recited limitation is a mental process. Therefore, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, Claims 5 and 6 are ineligible.
Dependent Claim 7 recites a limitation, “wherein the data flow of the plurality of data flows represents a flow of data transmitted by a predetermined application, and the data transmitted by the predetermined application is according to the respective interface of the plurality of interfaces acquired from the network device”, does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, Claim 7 is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Newell, Pub. No. US 2023/0052712 A1, discloses a network analysis device that estimates the number of packets in a flow through a network device without having to process all of the packets of the network device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights