DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11 December 2024, 06 January 2025, and 20 January 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 17-20 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 medium can include both transitory (i.e. non-statutory) media and non-transitory (i.e. statutory) media. While the Specification describes a specific non-transitory medium, the claims lack such specificity and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the claims medium encompasses non-statutory subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevinc et al. (US 20190149512) in view of Klimovs et al. (US 20170272442).
As per claims 1, 9, and 17, Sevinc et al. discloses a system including one or more networks including enforcement points with a processor and memory with instructions (see Fig. 1) to perform a method to perform packet level data centric protection enforcement in one or more networks, the method comprising: receiving a packet at an enforcement point (EP) within one or more networks that include a plurality of enforcement points (EPs) (see paragraphs [0023], [0043], and [0054] showing the that the rules are applied between devices in a specific order);
accessing enforcement data that indicates allowed communications between the EP and one or more other EPs, wherein the data are generated from a policy; and enforcing the flow of the packet at the EP based on the data (see paragraphs [0020], [0023], and [0043] where the rules, i.e. policies, are applied to enforce the policy).
While Sevinc et al. generally teaches that the rules are applied in a specific order, there lacks an explicit recitation of a policy that specifies how traffic flows the one or more networks and a determination of possible data movements between at least two of EPs in the plurality of EPs.
However, Klimovs et al. teaches a policy that specifies how traffic flows the one or more networks and a determination of possible data movements between at least two of EPs in the plurality of EPs (see paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the policy based on traffic flows of Klimovs et al. in the Sevinc et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to enforce the specific directional flow of traffic thereby ensuring they are reviewed at the required EPs.
As per claims 2, 10, and 18, the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system discloses generating a graph that identifies the plurality of EPs and possible data movements between the plurality of EPs, and wherein the enforcement data is generated based, at least in part, on the graph (see Klimovs et al. paragraph [0044]).
As per claims 4, 12, and 20, the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system discloses assigning unique Origin IDs to each of the plurality of EPs; and wherein the enforcement data includes Origin IDs for EPs that are neighbors to the EP and an indication of whether communication is allowed with each of the neighbors (see Klimovs et al. paragraph [0043]).
As per claims 5 and 13, the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system discloses the enforcement points comprise network virtualization devices (NVDs) that include NICs (see Sevinc et al. paragraph [0033]), but fails to explicitly disclose the NICs are smartNICs. However, Official Notice is taken that at a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to use smartNICs in the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system in order to increase the speed of the system by performing the steps at the NIC.
As per claims 6 and 14, the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system discloses enforcing the flow of the packet occurs prior to a transmission of the packet to a next hop (see Sevinc et al. paragraphs [0020], [0023], [0043], and [0054] and Klimovs et al. paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
As per claims 7 and 15, the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system discloses determining a source of the packet based, at least in part, on a first Origin ID; determining a destination of the packet based, at least in part, on a second Origin ID; and wherein enforcing the flow of the packet includes preventing the packet from transmission to a next hop based, at least in part, on one or more of the first Origin ID or the second Origin ID (see Sevinc et al. paragraphs [0020], [0023], [0043], and [0054] and Klimovs et al. paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Gopal et al. (US 20190215306).
As per claims 3, 11, and 19, the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system discloses generating a graph based, at least in part, one or more rules in the policy that specify how traffic flows through the enforcement point and other enforcement points wherein the enforcement data is generated based, at least in part, on the graph (see Sevinc et al. paragraphs [0020], [0023], [0043], and [0054] and Klimovs et al. paragraphs [0043]-[0044]), but fails to explicitly disclose the policy includes one or more layer 4 rules and one or more layer 7 rules; and wherein the enforcement data is generated based, at least in part, on the graph.
However, Gopal et al. teaches a distributed rule enforcement system that includes a policy includes one or more layer 4 rules and one or more layer 7 rules (see paragraphs [0040] and [0125]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to check layer 4 and layer 7 rules in the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to make the system more robust by checking additional OSI-layer information.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20220329566).
As per claims 8 and 16, the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system fails to explicitly disclose distributing first enforcement data to the EP and distributing second enforcement data to a second EP.
However, Huang et al. teaches distributing first enforcement data to the EP and distributing second enforcement data to a second EP (see Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0118]-[0119] and [0136])
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically distribute the enforcement data in the modified Sevinc et al. and Klimovs et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to ensure that the data is up-to-date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed towards policy/rule enforcement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/Michael Pyzocha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409