DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to application/ communications filed on 11/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 .
Domestic Benefit/ Cross Reference
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 18/100,489, filed Jan. 23, 2023 (now patent #12199859, issued on 01/14/2025).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “based on at least on one data packet…” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “based on at least one data packet…”.
Claim 4 recites the abbreviation “Application Specific Hardware (ASIC)” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC)” instead. Support for such amended can be found at least in [0035] and [0039].
Claim 4 recites the limitation “CPU” in line 3. Examiner recommends abbreviating the acronym prior to its first usage.
Claims 11 and 17 recite similar limitations as recited in claim 4. Therefore, the claim objection, as set forth above, also applies to the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “in response to a comparison of at least the first five-tuple and the second five-tuple in the high data transfer, causing, by the switching network device, either a rerouting of the second data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple matching the second five-tuple, or dropping of a data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple not matching the second five-tuple”.
The examiner finds that the limitation “a rerouting of the second data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple matching the second five-tuple” is supported by Fig.6B at steps 610 and 614, and as explained in [0063].
However, “dropping of a data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple not matching the second five-tuple” is not described in the specification. For example, at steps 612 and 616 of Fig.6B, the specification describes that in the second determination operation (i.e., step 612), a determination is made as to whether the first and second five tuples match one another, but either the first and second ingress interfaces do not match one another or the first and second VLANs do not match one another… If the answer to this second determination operation is yes, then the data packet is determined to be a duplicate flow data packet and the data packet is dropped (see [0064]). Additionally, at steps 618 and 620 of Fig.6C, the specification describes that if a determination is made that the first five tuple does not match the second five tuple 618, then the data packet is a new data packet. In that case, the data packet is rerouted to flow analytics tooling and the data packet information is sent to the CPU to learn the new data flow (see [0064]; also see Abstract).
Dropping of data packet is only described as happening when the tuples are matching, but either the ingress interfaces or the VLAN tags are mismatching (see Abstract; also see paragraphs [0016], [0038], [0041], [0046], [0048]-[0049] and [0051]). For e.g., the deduplication agent 128 detects the duplicate data packets 302b, 304b, 306b and drops them so that only the first data packets 302a, 304a, 306a are sent to the flow analytics tools (see [0051], and as claimed in dependent claim 3).
Neither these paragraphs, nor the rest of the specifications (including the drawings) provide a written description of the invention in full, clear, concise and exact terms. The highlighted limitation of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. As such, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Issues of adequate written description arise for original claims when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing (see MPEP 2163.I.A). The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art (see MPEP 2163.I.A). Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the (NEW MATTER) written description requirement.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As set forth above, the limitation “dropping of a data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple not matching the second five-tuple” of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, and the independent claims are failing to comply with the (NEW MATTER) written description requirement.
Such a limitation is also not sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim as the disclosure lacks sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention in compliance with the enablement requirement of section 112(a). Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure gives rise to failure to satisfy enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
This enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is separate and distinct from the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2181.IV.
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, 8 and 15 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.
The term “high data transfer” in claims 1, 8 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-5 of U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the instant application are obvious variation of the method claims of the U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2, as shown below:
Current Application
U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2
Claim 1:
A method for enabling a high data transfer while detecting duplicate data flows at a switch network, the method comprising:
receiving, by a switching network device via the high data transfer, a first data packet having a first five-tuple;
receiving, by the switching network device via the high data transfer, a second data packet having a second five-tuple;
comparing, by the switching network device, at least the first five-tuple of the first data packet with the second five-tuple of the second data packet in the high data transfer; and
in response to a comparison of at least the first five-tuple and the second five-tuple in the high data transfer, causing, by the switching network device, either a rerouting of the second data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple matching the second five-tuple, or dropping of a data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple not matching the second five-tuple.
Claim 1:
A method for detecting duplicate data flows in a data flow broker network, the method comprising:
receiving by a computer network device a first data packet having a first five tuple, a first ingress interface, and first Virtual Large Area Network (VLAN) tag;
installing an entry into a hardware-based policy tile database, the entry including the first five tuple, the first ingress interface, and the first VLAN tag;
receiving by the computer network device a second data packet having a second five tuple, a second ingress interface, and a second VLAN tag;
applying a first comparison operation of comparing the first five tuple with the second five tuple, the first ingress interface with the second ingress interface, and the first VLAN tag with the second VLAN tag;
in response to a compatible result from the first comparison operation of the first five tuple matching the second five tuple, the first ingress interface matching the second ingress interface, and the first VLAN tag matching the second VLAN tag, then causing rerouting of the second data packet to a data flow analyzer; …
Claim 2:
The method, as in claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the switching network device, a duplication of data flow based on at least on one data packet comprising at least the first five-tuple and another data packet comprising at least the second five-tuple.
See Claim 1:
… applying a first comparison operation of comparing the first five tuple with the second five tuple…;
Claim 3:
The method, as in claim 1, further comprising: in response to a determination of duplicate data packets by the switching network device, causing, by the switching network device, a rerouting of the second data packet to enable a flow analytics tooling of data traffic comprising at least the second data packet.
Claim 1:
… in response to a compatible result from the first comparison operation of the first five tuple matching the second five tuple, the first ingress interface matching the second ingress interface, and the first VLAN tag matching the second VLAN tag, then causing rerouting of the second data packet to a data flow analyzer.
Claim 4:
The method, as in claim 2, wherein determination by the switching network device being performed at a hardware level via Application Specific Hardware (ASIC) as opposed to at a software level implemented via a CPU.
Claim 3-5:
wherein the hardware-based database is stored in an Application Specific Integrated Circuit.
sending data regarding the first data packet to a central processing unit which performs operations to determine a first data flow based on the first five tuple and which generates the entry into the hardware-based policy tile database
Claim 5:
The method, as in claim 4, wherein determination is performed by logic of the ASIC to enable a faster determination of the duplication of data flow than by being performed by software of the CPU.
Claim 3-5:
wherein the hardware-based database is stored in an Application Specific Integrated Circuit.
sending data regarding the first data packet to a central processing unit which performs operations to determine a first data flow based on the first five tuple and which generates the entry into the hardware-based policy tile database
Claim 6:
The method, as in claim 2, further comprising: determining, by the switching network device, a duplication of at least the first data packet of a first data flow or the first data packet of a second data flow.
See Claim 1:
A method for detecting duplicate data flows in a data flow broker network, the method comprising: … applying a first comparison operation of comparing the first five tuple with the second five tuple…;
Regarding claims 8 and 15 (and their dependent claims), although the claims at issue are not identical, they are obvious variants of each other, and are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the system claim (claim 8) and corresponding routing device claim (Claim 15) in the instant application are met with respect to method claims of the U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2. In addition, the U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2 discloses corresponding routing device claim (Claim 7).
Claims 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-5 of U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2 in view of Baldi et al. (hereinafter, Baldi, US 20200336436 A1).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2 discloses the method, as in claim 1, as set forth above. U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2 does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the switching network device, at least the first data packet from at least one of a data traffic broker network or a production network.
However, Baldi discloses receiving, by the switching network device, at least the first data packet from at least one of a data traffic broker network or a production network (see [0036]-[0038]; Network packets (e.g., Internet Protocol (IP) packets) traverse production network 110 via network nodes 140(1)-140(4). Collection network 120 monitors these packets by capturing duplicates/copies of the packets from various entry points; nodes in a collection network 120 operate so as to forward multiple copies of a single packet traversing production network 110 to the collection server 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baldi with U.S. Patent US 12199859 B2 to receive, by the switching network device, at least the first data packet from at least one of a data traffic broker network or a production network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to compare a unique identifier of a copy of a packet of the flow (flow ID) with a unique identifier of another copy of a packet of the flow (Baldi: [0088] while ensuring very high rate operations (see Baldi: [0060]).
As for Claims 14 and 20, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claims 14 and 20 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baldi et al. (hereinafter, Baldi, US 20200336436 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baldi discloses a method for enabling a high data transfer (see [0060]; in order to ensure very high rate operations, the solution may be implemented in hardware (e.g., an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC)); also see [0084]; the first packet is transferred multiple times to collection server) while detecting duplicate data flows at a switch network (see [0057]; preventing duplication of packets in a network… Method may be performed at any network node), the method comprising:
receiving, by a switching network device via the high data transfer, a first data packet having a first five-tuple (see [0036]-[0038]; Network packets (e.g., Internet Protocol (IP) packets) traverse production network 110 via network nodes 140(1)-140(4). Collection network 120 monitors these packets by capturing duplicates/copies of the packets from various entry points; nodes in a collection network 120 operate so as to forward multiple copies of a single packet traversing production network 110 to the collection server 130; also see [0043]; The packet is part of a flow of packets. The flow may be characterized by, for example, the five-tuple including the source IP address, destination IP address, Layer 4 (L4) protocol, source transport port, and destination transport port; also see [0056]; Each flow ID in column 205 is, for example, the five-tuple of a different flow of one or more packets obtained by network node 150(1); also see Fig.2B:215 in view of [0057]);
receiving, by the switching network device via the high data transfer, a second data packet having a second five-tuple (see [0049]; A subsequent packet may traverse the same network path as the previous packet; also see [0056]; Network nodes 150(1)-150(3) may include respective forwarding tables, with network node 150(1), for example, including forwarding table 200A. As shown, forwarding table 200A includes a column of flow identifiers (IDs) 205 and a column of forwarding ports 210. Each flow ID in column 205 is, for example, the five-tuple of a different flow of one or more packets obtained by network node 150(1); also see [0058] in view of Fig.2B:240-215; network node waits for a new packet);
comparing, by the switching network device, at least the first five-tuple of the first data packet with the second five-tuple of the second data packet in the high data transfer (see [0055]-[0058] in view of Fig.2B:225-230; determining whether the network node had previously obtained a copy of a packet of the flow may include determining whether the flow is stored in a table or in a register; Each flow ID in column 205 is, for example, the five-tuple of a different flow of one or more packets obtained by network node 150(1); At 220, the network node extracts the flow ID f from the packet and uses flow ID f as a key in the forwarding table 200A. At 225, the network node determines whether flow ID f is already in the forwarding table 200A (i.e., whether the network node had previously obtained a copy of a packet of the flow with flow ID f); also see [0088]); and
in response to a comparison of at least the first five-tuple and the second five-tuple in the high data transfer (see [0055]-[0058]; also see [0088]), causing, by the switching network device, either a rerouting of the second data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple matching the second five-tuple (see [0055]-[0058] in view of Fig.2B:225-245; if it is determined that the network node had previously obtained a copy of a packet of the flow at the port, at 245 the network node forwards the packet (e.g., to network node 150(3))), or dropping of a data packet in response to at least the first five-tuple not matching the second five-tuple.
Regarding claim 2, Baldi discloses the method as in claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Baldi further discloses determining, by the switching network device, a duplication of data flow based on at least on one data packet comprising at least the first five-tuple and another data packet comprising at least the second five-tuple (see [0041]; see [0044]-[0048]; also see [0055]-[0058]; also see [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Baldi discloses the method as in claim 2, as set forth above. In addition, Baldi further discloses wherein determination by the switching network device being performed at a hardware level via Application Specific Hardware (ASIC) as opposed to at a software level implemented via a CPU (see [0060]; in order to ensure very high rate operations, the solution may be implemented in hardware (e.g., an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC)).
Regarding claim 5, Baldi discloses the method as in claim 4, as set forth above. In addition, Baldi further discloses wherein determination is performed by logic of the ASIC to enable a faster determination of the duplication of data flow than by being performed by software of the CPU (see [0060]; in order to ensure very high rate operations, the solution may be implemented in hardware (e.g., an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC)).
Regarding claim 6, Baldi discloses the method as in claim 2, as set forth above. In addition, Baldi further discloses wherein determination is performed by logic of the ASIC to enable a faster determination of the duplication of data flow than by being performed by software of the CPU (see [0060]; in order to ensure very high rate operations, the solution may be implemented in hardware (e.g., an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC)).
Regarding claim 7, Baldi discloses the method as in claim 2, as set forth above. In addition, Baldi further discloses receiving, by the switching network device, at least the first data packet from at least one of a data traffic broker network or a production network (see [0036]-[0038]; Network packets (e.g., Internet Protocol (IP) packets) traverse production network 110 via network nodes 140(1)-140(4). Collection network 120 monitors these packets by capturing duplicates/copies of the packets from various entry points; nodes in a collection network 120 operate so as to forward multiple copies of a single packet traversing production network 110 to the collection server 130).
As for Claim(s) 8 and 15, the claims list all the same elements of claim 1, but in a system (see system 100 in Fig.1 and Fig.4A) comprising: a network switch (see [0036]; network nodes (e.g., switches, routers, etc.)); and a deduplication agent (see Baldi [0041]; duplication prevention logic 195(1)-195(3) is provided on network nodes; also see [0057]; preventing duplication of packets in a network… Method may be performed at any network node); and routing device (see [0036]; network nodes (e.g., switches, routers, etc.); also see [0057]; preventing duplication of packets in a network… Method may be performed at any network node) comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions (see Baldi [0057]; also see [0127]) form to carry out the steps of claim 1, rather than the method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 6 and 11.
As for Claims 9 and 16, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claims 9 and 16 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
As for Claims 11 and 17, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claims 11 and 17 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As for Claims 12 and 18, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
As for Claims 13 and 19, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claims 13 and 19 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As for Claims 14 and 20, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claims 14 and 20 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldi et al. (hereinafter, Baldi, US 20200336436 A1) in view of Hammerle et al. (hereinafter, Hammerle, US 20190199609 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Baldi discloses the method as in claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Baldi further discloses in response to a determination of duplicate data packets by the switching network device, causing, by the switching network device, a rerouting of the second data packet (see [0041]; duplication prevention logic 195(1)-195(3) prevents duplication at the collection server 130 by causing network nodes 150(1)-150(3) to eliminate duplicate copies of packets as the copies are received at input ports 160(1), 120(2), 170(1), 170(2), 180(1), and 180(2) (e.g., from entry points 190(1)-190(4)). This ensures that only one copy is sent through a plurality of ports).
Although, and as set forth above, Baldi further discloses in response to a determination of duplicate data packets by the switching network device, causing, by the switching network device, a rerouting of the second data packet (see [0041]), Baldi does not explicitly disclose a rerouting of the second data packet to enable a flow analytics tooling of data traffic comprising at least the second data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Hammerle discloses in response to a determination of duplicate data packets by the switching network device, causing, by the switching network device, a rerouting of the second data packet to enable a flow analytics tooling of data traffic comprising at least the second data packet (see [0117]; one way to handle duplicate or same traffic provided by different observation ports may be to identify duplicate traffic or duplicate network packets and perform de-duplication to exclude duplicated traffic from being included in analysis of the network. For example, in some embodiments, duplicate network packets may be discarded with the remaining (non-duplicate) packets used to analyze the network; if duplicate network traffic is discarded, analysis engine may be provided the non-duplicate traffic to effectively analyze network behavior or network characteristics).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hammerle with Baldi to cause, by the switching network device, a rerouting of the second data packet to enable a flow analytics tooling of data traffic comprising at least the second data packet, in response to a determination of duplicate data packets by the switching network device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to effectively analyze network behavior or network characteristics (Hammerle: [0117]).
As for Claim 10, the claim depends on claim 8, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Friedman et al. (WO 2021252423 A1) discloses hardware-based transaction exchange.
Lorenz et al. (US 10091098 B1) teaches comparing a tracking characteristic of the received data packet against a list of tracking characteristics for the existing data flow connection currently processed by the first server.
LAVIGNE et al. (WO 2017138936 A1) discloses determining pattern match based on circuit match and hash value match.
Feroz et al. (US 20110242979 A1) teaches enhanced random early discard for networked devices.
Kuo (US 20140341030 A1) discloses switch engine determines that the corresponding instruction for the packet does not include the specific action of comparing the packet with another flow table, the corresponding instruction performed by the switch engine at least includes either dropping the packet, or transmitting the packet to an external network device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights