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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 6/30/26, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly added claim 21 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.
Applicant argued:
Therefore, paragraph [0056] of Jackowski merely discloses identifying and preventing the transmission of "confidential information." However, although this paragraph of Jackowski may disclose identifying and preventing a transmission of "confidential information," Applicant respectfully submits that the cited excerpt is noticeably silent on any disclosure of a "legacy processing platform."
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited reference cannot reasonably be considered to anticipate the claimed subject matter because Jackowski does not teach every element of the independent claims. See MPEP § 2131.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant employs language, which includes the use of words and phrases which have broad meaning in the art (i.e., “a legacy processing platform”). In this case, the phrase/terms “legacy processing platform” is interpreted by the Examiner to encompass any processing platform. Moreover, the instant specification lacks any detail of what a “legacy processing platform” is. Thus, Applicant's arguments cannot be deemed persuasive.
Furthermore, paragraph [0055] of Jackowski states in part, “In other embodiments, the appliance inspects the content of intercepted requests to identify and block application-based attacks. In some embodiments, the rules/policy engine includes one or more application firewall or security control policies for providing protections against various classes and types of web or Internet based vulnerabilities, such as one or more of the following:… 15) platform or operating systems vulnerabilities…” (Emphasis added). And Table 1, page 26 shows a Group ID 512 that filters Legacy applications. Thus, Jackowski clearly teaches every element of the independent claims.
Applicant also argued:
Therefore, paragraph [0075] of Jackowski merely discloses: (1) receiving
"credentials"; (2) "a policy engine"; (3) receiving "application-output data"; and (4) executing an "application to stream...." However, Applicant respectfully submits that none of these disclosures of paragraph [0075] can reasonably be considered to be the same as "determining... an anomalous traffic pattern and a suspicious traffic pattern."
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Jackowski cannot reasonably be
considered to anticipate the claimed subject matter, not only because Jackowski fails to teach every element of the independent claims, but because Jackowski also fails to teach every element of claims 5 and 14 as well. See MPEP § 2131.
The Examiner submits that since paragraph [0055] of Jackowski states in part, “In yet another embodiment, the appliance 205 provides application firewall functionality for communications between the client 102 and server 106. In one embodiment, a policy engine 295' provides rules for detecting and blocking illegitimate requests. In some embodiments, the application firewall protects against denial of service (DoS) attacks. In other embodiments, the appliance inspects the content of intercepted requests to identify and block application-based attacks,” Jackowski teaches the limitations of claims 5 and 14.
The Examiner had cited particular paragraphs in the reference as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures are also applicable as shown above since they relate to or are elaborated upon the previous citations. Applicant is required to fully consider the reference in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows. In conclusion, upon taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cited reference teaches all of the claimed limitations and the rejections are maintained as below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackowski et al. (2012/0042060).
As per claim 1, Jackowski et al. teaches a method for implementing an international standard-based resource transmission request rerouting tool, the method comprising: receiving, at a resource transmission network of an enterprise, a first set of resource transmission requests that are associated with the resource transmission network [paragraphs 0035 and 0042];
redirecting, away from a legacy processing platform of the resource transmission network, the first set of resource transmission requests to a resource transmission request routing engine [paragraphs 0055-0056 and Table 1, page 26];
performing, by the resource transmission request routing engine, a preliminary analysis by evaluating each resource transmission request against at least one from among a first set of rules and a first set of filters [paragraphs 0198-0199];
based on the preliminary analysis, forwarding, by the resource transmission request routing engine, the resource transmission request to a corresponding processing platform that is configured to process the resource transmission request [paragraphs 0093-0094]; and
processing, by the corresponding processing platform, the resource transmission request [paragraphs 0200 and 0274].
As per claim 2, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding processing platform comprises at least one from among a new processing platform of the resource transmission network, a heightened-scrutiny processing platform, a dummy processing platform, the legacy processing platform, and a commercial resource transmission request processing platform from an external vendor [paragraph 0096].
As per claim 3, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one from among the first set of rules and the first set of filters: evaluates a first set of fields of the resource transmission request, wherein the resource transmission request comprises a standard resource transmission request format that includes the first set of fields [paragraph 0105].
As per claim 4, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the first set of fields comprises at least one from among a message length field, a message header field, message type field, at least a primary bitmap field, and a data elements field, and wherein the at least the primary bitmap field comprises at least one from among the primary bitmap field, a secondary bitmap field, and a tertiary bitmap field [paragraph 0108].
As per claim 5, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the preliminary analysis comprises determining whether the first set of resource transmission requests includes at least one from among an anomalous traffic pattern and a suspicious traffic pattern [paragraphs 0055 and 0075].
As per claim 6, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the preliminary analysis comprises determining at least one from among a resource transmission request type and a resource transmission request source [paragraph 0037].
As per claim 7, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one from among the first set of rules and the first set of filters comprises: at least one from among a load balancing rule, a load balancing filter, a traffic migration rule, a traffic migration filter, a traffic blocking rule, a traffic blocking filter, a traffic volume rule, and a traffic volume filter, wherein at least one from among the traffic blocking rule and the traffic blocking filter comprises at least one from among a denial-of-service attack blocking rule and a denial-of-service attack blocking filter, and wherein at least one from among the traffic volume rule and the traffic volume filter comprises at least one from among a traffic volume limiting rule and a traffic volume limiting filter [paragraph 0199].
As per claim 8, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one from among the first set of rules and the first set of filters comprises: at least one from among a processing platform threshold resource transmission amount and a processing platform threshold response time [paragraph 0224].
As per claim 9, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the processing comprises: generating, by the corresponding processing platform, a reply to the resource transmission request; and transmitting, via the resource transmission network, the reply to a requesting device of the resource transmission request [paragraph 0233].
As per claim 10, Jackowski et al. teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the reply comprises at least one from among an authorization of the resource transmission request and a denial of the resource transmission request [paragraph 0234].
Claims 11-19 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackowski et al. (2012/0042060) in view of Chen et al. (2019/0012210).
Jackowski et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Chen et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the determining comprises utilizing an artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) model that has been trained, with at least one set of historical resource transmission requests, to determine whether subsequent resource transmission requests include a pattern [Chen et al., paragraphs 0122-0125].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jackowski et al. with Chen et al. in order to use artificial intelligence that relates to mathematical models that can learn from, categorize, and make predictions about data.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights