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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 2 Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the following limitation:
“…receiving, from a third party network infrastructure, flow data about network traffic flow”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The current claim language fail to explicitly disclose “..network traffic that actually flows through the third-party network infrastructure is used to determine what policy is being applied…”
The current claim limitation only requires “receiving.., flow data about network traffic flow”, which can be any data that is related to network traffic flow, and that flow data is received from a third party network infrastructure.
Hence, based on the above interpretation, Lopez, teaches receiving, from a third-party network infrastructure, flow data about network traffic flow (receive network segments that includes active configuration, refer to par 0022);
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is therefore maintained.
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(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al hereinafter Lopez (US 20210120042) in view of Goldschlag et al hereinafter Goldschlag (US 20200162431).
Referring to Claim 2. Lopez discloses a method for managing a segmentation policy, the method comprising:
obtaining a segmentation policy comprising a first set of allow-only rules for controlling
network traffic between workloads (obtain the expected configuration, refer to par 0022);
receiving, from a third-party network infrastructure, flow data about network traffic flow (receive network segments that includes active configuration, refer to par 0022);
analyzing the flow data to determine network traffic flow permitted or blocked by the
third-party network infrastructure (obtain the active configuration that includes the network policies, refer to par 0022);
converting the network traffic flow into a second set of allow-only rules for controlling
network traffic between the workloads (refer to par 0022-0023,0024, 0043 process the active configuration to the format understood by the security maintenance manager);
comparing the first set of allow-only rules to the second set of allow-only rules to identify a discrepancy (compare the differences between configurations, refer to par 0024, 0035, 0043); and triggering a corrective action in response to identifying the discrepancy (added on the differences to the rules, refer to par 0024, 0035, 0043).
Although Lopez disclosed the invention substantially, Lopez did not clearly disclosing the converting steps in details.
Goldschiag, in analogous art, disclosing the converting the network traffic flow into a second set of allow-only rules for controlling the network traffic (translate the policy into the local policy forms, refer to par 0090, 0091).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lopez in view of Goldschiag because Goldschiag’s teaching would allow the system of Lopez’s to seamlessly utilize the network resource from external entity without much delay in process.
Referring to Claim 3. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Lopez discloses wherein the flow data comprises source and destination IP addresses, destination ports, and transport-layer protocols associated with the network traffic flow (determine source, destination IPs and ports, refer to par 0024 and ).
Referring to Claim 4. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Goldschiag discloses wherein the flow data is obtained using passive probing by one or more hosts executing the workloads (push, refer to 0050).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lopez in view of Goldschiag because Goldschiag’s teaching would allow the system of Lopez’s to seamlessly utilize the network resource from external entity without much delay in process.
Referring to Claim 5. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Goldschiag discloses wherein the flow data is obtained using active probing by one or more hosts executing the workloads (poll, refer to par 0050).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lopez in view of Goldschiag because Goldschiag’s teaching would allow the system of Lopez’s to seamlessly utilize the network resource from external entity without much delay in process.
Referring to Claim 6. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Lopez discloses wherein converting the network traffic flow into the second set of allow-only rules comprises:
identifying a first set of flows allowed by the third-party network infrastructure (refer to par 0039- 0044);
identifying a second set of flows blocked by the third-party network infrastructure (refer to par 0039 - 0043); and converting the first set of flows into the second set of allow-only rules (refer to par 0043, 0045).
Referring to Claim 7. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Lopez discloses wherein comparing the first set of allow-only rules to the second set of allow-only rules comprises identifying one or more flows that are permitted by the segmentation policy but blocked by the third-party network infrastructure (refer to par 0039).
Referring to Claim 8. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Lopez discloses wherein comparing the first set of allow-only rules to the second set of allow-only rules comprises identifying one or more flows that are blocked by the segmentation policy but permitted by the third-party network infrastructure (refer to par 0035, 0044, 0045).
Referring to Claim 9. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Lopez discloses wherein the corrective action comprises
generating, for display via an administrative interface, a notification identifying the discrepancy, the notification comprising a recommendation to modify the segmentation policy or a configuration of the third-party network infrastructure (refer to par 0039).
Referring to Claim 10. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Lopez discloses wherein the corrective action comprises automatically modifying the segmentation policy to reduce a scope of one or more rules in response to the discrepancy (refer to par 0039, 0040, 0043).
Referring to Claim 11. Lopez with Goldschiag disclosed the method of claim 2, Lopez discloses wherein the corrective action comprises sending an instruction to modify a configuration of the third-party network infrastructure (abstract, modify the active configuration, refer to par 0040).
Referring to Claims 12 – 21, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 2-11.
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 KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 4pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights