DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 and 04/02/2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. 12,101,227. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims is anticipated by the patented claims. For example, compare instant claim 1 with patented claim 1, and instant claim 15 with patented claim 1:
U.S. Pat. 12,101,227
App. No. 18/893,090
1. A method comprising:
1. A system comprising:
processing circuitry having access to a storage device, the processing circuitry configured to:
obtaining flow records indicative of packet flows among workloads deployed to a cluster of one or more computing devices configured with a network policy, wherein each flow record of the flow records indicates a corresponding packet flow was allowed or denied by the cluster;
obtain one or more flow records indicative of one or more packet flows among workloads deployed to one or more computing devices configured with a network policy, wherein each of the one or more flow records indicates permission for a corresponding packet flow of the one or more packet flows in accordance with the network policy; and
receiving an updated network policy;
determining whether a corresponding packet flow for a flow record of the flow records has a discrepancy with the updated network policy; and
in response to determining the corresponding packet flow for the flow record of the flow records has a discrepancy with the updated network policy, outputting an indication of an error.
based on determining whether the corresponding packet flow for one of the one or more flow records has a discrepancy with the network policy, output an indication of a validation or an indication of an error.
U.S. Pat. 12,101,227
App. No. 18/893,090
1. A method comprising:
15. Non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed, causes processing circuitry to:
obtaining flow records indicative of packet flows among workloads deployed to a cluster of one or more computing devices configured with a network policy, wherein each flow record of the flow records indicates a corresponding packet flow was allowed or denied by the cluster;
obtain one or more flow records indicative of one or more packet flows among workloads deployed to one or more computing devices configured with a network policy, wherein each of the one or more flow records indicates permission for a corresponding packet flow of the one or more packet flows in accordance with the network policy;
receiving an updated network policy;
receive an updated network policy; and
determining whether a corresponding packet flow for a flow record of the flow records has a discrepancy with the updated network policy; and
in response to determining the corresponding packet flow for the flow record of the flow records has a discrepancy with the updated network policy, outputting an indication of an error.
based on determining whether the corresponding packet flow has a discrepancy with the updated network policy, output an indication of a validation or an indication of an error.
Patented claims 9 and 18 are independent and parallel in scope to patented claim 1. Instant claim 10 is parallel in scope to instant claim 1 and similarly anticipated by patented claims 1, 9, and 18. Instant claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are anticipated by patented claims 2-8, 10-17, 19, and 20.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Exemplary claim 1 is directed to a system comprising processing circuitry configure to obtain flow records of packet flows, determining whether a packet flow has a discrepancy with a network policy based on a flow record, and outputting a validation or an error. The claim merely recites a mental process, or a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Claims 10 and 15 recite a similar concept, embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable media. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claims recite additional elements such as processing circuitry, a storage device, and a non-transitory computer-readable media, these elements are generically recited and do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they function to perform data gathering (i.e., obtaining flow records, updated network policy), output (i.e., indications of validation/error), or storage (i.e., storage device/computer-readable media), which are extra-solution, conventional activity that is nothing more than placing the abstract idea in a computing environment. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 15 are rejected. The dependent claims further recite additional determination steps for comparing flow records to policy, which do not add significantly more. Accordingly, claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected as depending from claims 1, 10, and 15 and under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rahman et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2010/0188976).
Regarding claim 1, Rahman disclosed a system comprising: processing circuitry having access to a storage device (processors, machine-readable storage media, ¶[0019]), the processing circuitry configured to: obtain one or more flow records indicative of one or more packet flows among workloads deployed to one or more computing devices configured with a network policy (collecting, i.e., obtaining, flow records, ¶[0023], [0029], [0048]; flow records related to monitored flows of traffic, i.e., packet flows, ¶[0039]; flows related to applications, i.e., workloads, ¶[0041]; follow related to network elements, i.e., computing devices, ¶[0024]; network elements having policy information/structure, i.e., configured with a network policy, ¶[0025], [0058]), wherein each of the one or more flow records indicates permission for a corresponding packet flow of the one or more packet flows in accordance with the network policy (flow records monitoring traffic transmitted, i.e., packet flow permitted, by network element, i.e., in accordance with its network policy, ¶[0039]); and based on determining whether the corresponding packet flow for one of the one or more flow records has a discrepancy with the network policy (correlating flow records against policy definitions, i.e., network policy, and determining whether to assign a policy action based on policy definitions, ¶[0054]; determining, e.g., a rule is violated/met for a given flow, i.e., discrepancy, to trigger a policy action, ¶[0056], [0059]), output an indication of a validation or an indication of an error (transmitting, i.e., outputting, the policy action, i.e., indication of an error, ¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Rahman disclosed the system wherein to output the indication of the validation or the indication of the error, the processing circuitry is configured to: based on determining the corresponding packet flow has the discrepancy with the network policy, output the indication of the error (correlating flow records against policy definitions, i.e., network policy, and determining whether to assign a policy action based on policy definitions, ¶[0054]; determining, e.g., a rule is violated/met for a given flow, i.e., discrepancy, to trigger a policy action, ¶[0056], [0059]; transmitting, i.e., outputting, the policy action, i.e., indication of an error, ¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Rahman disclosed the system wherein to determine the corresponding packet flow has the discrepancy with the network policy, the processing circuitry is configured to: determine the one of the one or more flow records indicates the corresponding packet flow was allowed and no rule of the network policy allows the corresponding packet flow (correlating flow records against policy definitions, i.e., network policy, and determining whether to assign a policy action based on policy definitions, ¶[0054]; determining, e.g., a rule is violated/met for a given flow, i.e., discrepancy, to trigger a policy action, ¶[0056], [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Rahman disclosed he system wherein to output the indication of the validation or the indication of the error, the processing circuitry is configured to: based on determining the corresponding packet flow does not have the discrepancy with the network policy, output the indication of the validation (outputting indication of validation claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 9, Rahman disclosed the system wherein the discrepancy comprises one of: (1) the network policy would deny the corresponding packet flow (determining, e.g., a rule is violated/met for a given flow, i.e., discrepancy, to trigger a policy action, ¶[0056], [0059]), and the one of the one or more flow records indicate the corresponding packet flow was allowed (flow records monitoring traffic transmitted, i.e., packet flow permitted, by network element, i.e., in accordance with its network policy, ¶[0039]); or (2) the network policy would allow the corresponding packet flow, and the one of the one or more flow records indicate the corresponding packet flow was denied.
Regarding claim 10, Rahman disclosed non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions (machine-readable media storing code, ¶[0019]) that, when executed, causes processing circuitry to: obtain one or more flow records indicative of one or more packet flows among workloads deployed to one or more computing devices configured with a network policy (collecting, i.e., obtaining, flow records, ¶[0023], [0029], [0048]; flow records related to monitored flows of traffic, i.e., packet flows, ¶[0039]; flows related to applications, i.e., workloads, ¶[0041]; follow related to network elements, i.e., computing devices, ¶[0024]; network elements having policy information/structure, i.e., configured with a network policy, ¶[0025], [0058]), wherein each of the one or more flow records indicates permission for a corresponding packet flow of the one or more packet flows in accordance with the network policy (flow records monitoring traffic transmitted, i.e., packet flow permitted, by network element, i.e., in accordance with its network policy, ¶[0039]); and based on determining whether the corresponding packet flow for one of the one or more flow records has a discrepancy with the network policy (correlating flow records against policy definitions, i.e., network policy, and determining whether to assign a policy action based on policy definitions, ¶[0054]; determining, e.g., a rule is violated/met for a given flow, i.e., discrepancy, to trigger a policy action, ¶[0056], [0059]), output an indication of a validation or an indication of an error (transmitting, i.e., outputting, the policy action, i.e., indication of an error, ¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Rahman disclosed the non-transitory computer-readable media wherein to output the indication of the validation or the indication of the error, the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: based on determining the corresponding packet flow has the discrepancy with the network policy, output the indication of the error (correlating flow records against policy definitions, i.e., network policy, and determining whether to assign a policy action based on policy definitions, ¶[0054]; determining, e.g., a rule is violated/met for a given flow, i.e., discrepancy, to trigger a policy action, ¶[0056], [0059]; transmitting, i.e., outputting, the policy action, i.e., indication of an error, ¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 12, Rahman disclosed the non-transitory computer-readable media wherein to output the indication of the validation or the indication of the error, the instructions cause the processing circuitry to: based on determining the corresponding packet flow does not have the discrepancy with the network policy, output the indication of the validation (outputting indication of validation claimed in the alternative).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Robertson et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2019/0104144) disclosed comparing flow records with policy definitions to determine the occurrence of a threat event.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441