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 .
This office action is in response to amendments filed on May 6, 2026.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 13-14, 17-18 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn as the claims have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10 of Remarks, filed May 6, 2026, with respect to Claims 9-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 9-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0279836 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Vasseur”, and in view of Bhandarkar (U.S. Patent No. 9,577,943 B1) hereinafter referred to as “Bhandarkar”.
Regarding Claim 1:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
A method for exchanging cyber threat intelligence, comprising: receiving, from one or more sources, threat intelligence information (Par. [0077], Par. [0081]-[0082], Par. [0093]-[0094]). Vasseur teaches a supervisory/control agent (SCA) receiving anomaly detection information and threat intelligence feed data.
determining, based on the threat intelligence information, threat data indicating a cyber threat or a security risk (Par. [0077], Par. [0086]-[0087], Par. [0095], Par. [0099]). Vasseur teaches generating a threat intelligence feedback message based on matching the anomaly with the feed data, and this feedback message indicates a threat level associated with the anomaly.
(taught by Bhandarkar below)
((Par. [0038], Par. [0058], Par. [0075]-[0076], Par. [0085]-[0087], Par. [0095]-[0097]). Vasseur teaches this feedback being a downstream message to distributed learning agents (DLAs) which communicate with the SCA via a routing protocol. These DLAs include routers.
and sending, according to the protocol, the message to the one or more routers to enable the one or more routers to perform an action (Par. [0058], Par. [0075]-[0076], Par. [0085]-[0087], Par. [0095]-[0097]). The phrase “to enable the one or more routers to perform an action based on the tag” constitutes intended usage which carries little patentable weight. It is recommended by the Examiner to positively recite this limitation. The DLAs of Vasseur use this received feedback to respond to the detected anomalies, and these DLAs are further taught being routers.
Bhandarkar teaches the following limitations:
determining a first category of the threat data from among a plurality of categories, the plurality of categories including at least three categories (Fig. 5A, Col. 2, lines 34-61, Col. 3, lines 28-63, Col. 7, lines 33-63, Col. 9, lines 46-67). Bhandarkar teaches responding to malicious flows with tiered network services, and this can be considered a type of classification under the broadest reasonable interpretation. It is recommended by the Examiner to further clarify what such categories entail. In Fig. 5A, Bhandarkar shows four such categories.
injecting a tag into a message associated with a protocol that is implemented for communicating routing data to one or more routers, the tag indicating the first category (Fig. 5A, Col. 2, lines 34-61, Col. 3, lines 28-63, Col. 7, lines 33-63, Col. 9, lines 46-67). Bhandarkar teaches this categorization being achieved through injecting a community value/tag according to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), a routing protocol.
based on the tag (Fig. 5A, Col. 2, lines 34-61, Col. 3, lines 28-63, Col. 7, lines 33-63, Col. 9, lines 46-67). Bhandarkar teaches using this tag to indicate the network service, i.e. action performed.
Vasseur teaches policies for determining threats, but does not teach a dependence on routing protocol. Bhandarkar however teaches that a unique community value as part of the border gateway protocol for routing can be additionally used to indicate threats and identify network services for responding to threats, and that this identification can increase network performance by prioritizing certain services (Col. 2, lines 34-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the policy-based threat determination of Vasseur with the BGP community value of Bhandarkar in order to gain the benefit of improved network performance from tiering services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the BGP community value of Bhandarkar is compatible with the policies of Vasseur as they both are systems related to malicious traffic detection for routers, and that additionally using such a unique community value would gain the benefit of improving network performance by identifying higher priority network services for responding to threats.
Regarding Claims 2, 20:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
wherein determining the threat data is performed automatically and comprises: identifying, using a model, a portion of the threat intelligence information associated with an environment (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]). Vasseur teaches the SCA using automated rule-based policies to determine a threat. This policy-based decision making can be considered a model under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and this intelligence information can be considered to be associated with an environment, such as the feed sources or the cloud, as an environment is not defined.
generating, based on the portion of the threat intelligence information, a score indicating a risk or a threat associated with the portion of the threat intelligence information to the environment (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]). Vasseur teaches the SCA determining scores and matching against a threshold for feedback determination.
and based on determining the score is above a threshold, generating the message (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]). Vasseur generates feedback depending on thresholds being met.
Regarding Claim 3:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
wherein the method is performed by one of a firewall or a controller of an entity (Par. [0077], Par. [0081]-[0082], Par. [0093]-[0094]). The SCA was previously taught to be a controller.
Regarding Claim 4:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
wherein the entity includes at least one of a service provider, an internet service provider, a vendor, or a government entity (Par. [0019], Par. [0053], Par. [0080]-[0083]). Vasseur further teaches that the SCA is a controller within a communication network. This can be considered that of a service provider, as the SCA communicates with DLAs which are routers providing internet. This can alternatively be considered that of a service provider in the sense that the SCA leverages threat intelligence services and subsequently provides such services to the DLAs. It can further alternatively be considered to be that of a vendor since Vasseur is directed towards the SCA serving client devices.
Regarding Claim 5:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
further comprising: defining respective categories for each respective indicator of compromise (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]). The policies of Vasseur correspond to matching indicators of compromise against thresholds, i.e. categories with associated unique values under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
assigning, (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]).
associating the unique values with one or more updates associated with the routing protocol (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]). In the context of routing protocols such as the border gateway protocol (BGP), updates are directed towards messages. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the policies of Vasseur associate these thresholds with the messages received for message generation.
and storing the associations in a memory, wherein (Par. [0034]-[0036], Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0084], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]). These policies/associations are stored in memory within the SCA, and are used for determining to generate the message. In combination with Bhandarkar below which teaches specifying a network service to respond to such threats through injecting a tag, this teaches the claimed limitation.
Bhandarkar teaches the following limitation:
based on the protocol (Fig. 5A, Col. 2, lines 34-61, Col. 3, lines 28-63, Col. 7, lines 33-63, Col. 9, lines 46-67). Bhandarkar teaches the previously recited categories having unique BGP community values for threat response.
injecting the tag (Fig. 5A, Col. 2, lines 34-61, Col. 3, lines 28-63, Col. 7, lines 33-63, Col. 9, lines 46-67). The tag injected corresponds to these unique values.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
wherein the method is implemented by a controller of a service provider (Par. [0019], Par. [0053], Par. [0080]-[0083]). Vasseur taught the SCA being a controller of a service provider.
Regarding Claims 7, 19:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
wherein the one or more sources include at least one of: a third-party entity; an open-source entity; or an internal service of an entity (Par. [0077], Par. [0080]-[0083], Par. [0093]-[0094]). Vasseur taught the threat intelligence feed information being received from cloud-based services, which can be considered third-party or an internal service under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claims 8:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
wherein the message is sent from a first entity and the one or more routers are associated with at least one of: an environment of the first entity; one or more second entities associated with the first entity; or one or more users associated with the first entity or the one or more second entities (Par. [0075]-[0076], Par. [0085]-[0087], Par. [0095]-[0097]). An environment is not clearly defined, so the routers can be considered to be associated with the network environment associated with the SCA.
Regarding Claim 17:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media maintaining instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a network device or a controller, program the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Par. [0034]-[0036], Par. [0114]).
receiving, from one or more sources, threat intelligence information (Par. [0077], Par. [0081]-[0082], Par. [0093]-[0094]).
determining, based on the threat intelligence information, threat data indicating a cyber threat or a security risk (Par. [0077], Par. [0086]-[0087], Par. [0095], Par. [0099]).
(taught by Bhandarkar below).
and sending the message to one or more routers to enable the one or more routers to perform an action based on the message (Par. [0058], Par. [0075]-[0076], Par. [0085]-[0087], Par. [0095]-[0097]).
Bhandarkar teaches the following limitation:
injecting a tag into a message associated with a protocol that is implemented for communicating routing data, the tag indicating a first category from among a plurality of categories (Fig. 5A, Col. 2, lines 34-61, Col. 3, lines 28-63, Col. 7, lines 33-63, Col. 9, lines 46-67). Previously, it was shown in the rejection of Claim 1 that Bhandarkar taught injecting a BGP community value/tag which indicated a category under the broadest reasonable interpretation. It is further noted by the Examiner that in this particular claim, it is not recited what these categories entail in particular, and it is further recommended that these categories be further clarified.
Vasseur teaches policies for determining threats, but does not teach a dependence on routing protocol. Bhandarkar however teaches that a unique community value as part of the border gateway protocol for routing can be additionally used to indicate threats and identify network services for responding to threats, and that this identification can increase network performance by prioritizing certain services (Col. 2, lines 34-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the policy-based threat determination of Vasseur with the BGP community value of Bhandarkar in order to gain the benefit of improved network performance from tiering services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the BGP community value of Bhandarkar is compatible with the policies of Vasseur as they both are systems related to malicious traffic detection for routers, and that additionally using such a unique community value would gain the benefit of improving network performance by identifying higher priority network services for responding to threats.
Regarding Claim 18:
Vasseur teaches the following limitations:
defining respective categories for each respective indicator of compromise (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]).
assigning, (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]).
associating the unique values with one or more updates associated with the protocol (Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]).
and storing the associations in a memory (Par. [0034]-[0036], Par. [0077], Par. [0080], Par. [0084], Par. [0087], Par. [0089]-[0090], Par. [0095]).
Bhandarkar teaches the following limitation:
based on the protocol (Fig. 5A, Col. 2, lines 34-61, Col. 3, lines 28-63, Col. 7, lines 33-63, Col. 9, lines 46-67).
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dousti et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0084005 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Dousti”, is directed towards a system for DDoS attack mitigation according to BGP messaging (Par. [0008]). Dousti further teaches that BGP messages can include a community attribute, and that this community attribute can be set to a special value to indicate that a DDoS attack is ongoing (Par. [0025], Par. [0038]). Dousti further teaches that this community attribute can then be switched to a different value to indicate that a DDoS attack has stopped (Par. [0026], Par. [0040]).
Bhandarkar is directed towards a system for BGP messaging in which the community attribute indicates a tiered network service (Col. 2, lines 34-61). Bhandarkar further teaches that these tiered network services can comprise four possible services, and these services can be used to respond to malicious flow according to a level of prioritization, thereby improving network performance (Fig. 5A, Col. 2, lines 34-61, Col. 3, lines 28-63, Col. 7, lines 33-63, Col. 9, lines 46-67).
The prior art of record does not explicitly disclose, in light of other features recited in independent claims, “injecting a tag into a message associated with a protocol that is implemented for communicating routing data, the tag indicating a category of the security concern and a severity of the security concern” as recited in independent Claim 9. While Dousti teaches using a BGP community value for indicating a DDoS attack, Dousti is silent with regards to the tag both indicated a category and severity of such an attack. On the other hand, while Bhandarkar teaches the BGP community value corresponding to multiple tiers of network services, Bhandarkar is also silent with regards to the tag indicating both a category and severity of an attack. Therefore, while the prior art of record discloses using a BGP community value in relation to malicious threat identification, the recitation of the injected tag including both a categorization and severity of a security concern as presented in the independent claims is not anticipated nor obvious over the prior art of record.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Eswaran (U.S. Patent. No. 8,964,763 B2) – Includes methods regarding incorporating anomaly signatures into routing attributes
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN V VO whose telephone number is (571)272-2505. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/E.V.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2431 /MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
