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 .
The following is a final office action in response to communications received 07/15/2026. Claims 1, 4, 11 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-19 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and response to the claims are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Terminal Disclaimer was filed and approved on 07/15/2026, therefore Examiner withdraws the double patent rejections set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Compton and Callon does not disclose 1) a rate limit in a rate limit field of a FlowSpec announcement.
In respect to argument (1), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Callon discloses traffic filter may then monitor the received data to determine if the amount or rate of received data exceeds a threshold. If the data exceeds the threshold, traffic filter may generate a control message (interpreted as FlowSpec announcement) to be sent to the other network devices, such as routers A-D, that will instruct the other devices to further restrict the rate of data being forwarded to the firewall, col.8 lines 23-39. Traffic filter may then filter the traffic in each category based on a particular rate limit associated with the corresponding category. The rate limit information may be different for one or more of the categories of traffic, traffic filter may begin filtering data traffic based on the particular rate limits. Traffic filter passes an amount of data that does not exceed the rate limits for each category to traffic router, col.10 lines 4-21.
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.
Claim 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, 17 recite in part process steps which, receiving, at a gateway device, a first FlowSpec announcement; determining, at the gateway device, that the first FlowSpec announcement passes an acceptability test; and in response to determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test, forwarding, by the gateway device, the first FlowSpec announcement to a router, wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test comprises determining that a rate limit field of the first FlowSpec announcement has a value less than a set maximum permissible rate limit, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1-19 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites – a router, and a gateway device…a router and a gateway device are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-19 are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test comprises determining that a rate limit field of the first FlowSpec announcement has a value less than a set maximum permissible rate limit, to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1-19 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton (Pub. No. US 2022/0116417) in view of Callon et al (Pat. No. US 7389537).
As per claim 1, Compton discloses a method, comprising: receiving, at a gateway device, a first FlowSpec announcement (…the first entity advertises a flowspec rule to one or more neighboring entities…see par. 108-109); determining, at the gateway device, that the first FlowSpec announcement passes an acceptability test (…the neighboring entity/entities begins a process of a modified RPKI validation of the flowspec rule…see par. 109-113); and in response to determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test, forwarding, by the gateway device, the first FlowSpec announcement to a router (… If the flowspec rule is validated using the auxiliary method (YES branch of decision), the neighboring entity accepts the flowspec rule and sends the flowspec rule to the appropriate routers…see par. 109-113).
Compton does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test comprises determining that a rate limit field of the first FlowSpec announcement has a value less than a set maximum permissible rate limit. However Callon discloses wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test comprises determining that a rate limit field of the first FlowSpec announcement has a value less than a set maximum permissible rate limit (traffic filter may then monitor the received data to determine if the amount or rate of received data exceeds a threshold. If the data exceeds the threshold, traffic filter may generate a control message (interpreted as FlowSpec announcement) to be sent to the other network devices, such as routers A-D, that will instruct the other devices to further restrict the rate of data being forwarded to the firewall, col.8 lines 23-39. Traffic filter may then filter the traffic in each category based on a particular rate limit associated with the corresponding category. The rate limit information may be different for one or more of the categories of traffic, traffic filter may begin filtering data traffic based on the particular rate limits. Traffic filter passes an amount of data that does not exceed the rate limits for each category to traffic router, col.10 lines 4-21). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Callon in Compton for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve addressing attacks occurring in the network by detecting rate limiting an amount of data being forwarded by one or more routers…see col.3 lines 49-51.
As per claim 17, Compton discloses a system, comprising: a FlowSpec gateway, the FlowSpec gateway comprising a processing circuit and memory storing instructions (see fig.7) that, when executed by the processing circuit, cause the FlowSpec gateway to perform a set of operations comprising: receiving a FlowSpec announcement (…the first entity advertises a flowspec rule to one or more neighboring entities…see par. 108-109); determining that the FlowSpec announcement passes an acceptability test (…the neighboring entity/entities begins a process of a modified RPKI validation of the flowspec rule…see par. 109-113); and in response to determining that the FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test, forwarding the FlowSpec announcement to a first router (… If the flowspec rule is validated using the auxiliary method (YES branch of decision), the neighboring entity accepts the flowspec rule and sends the flowspec rule to the appropriate routers…see par. 109-113).
Compton does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test comprises determining that a rate limit field of the first FlowSpec announcement has a value less than a set maximum permissible rate limit. However Callon discloses wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test comprises determining that a rate limit field of the first FlowSpec announcement has a value less than a set maximum permissible rate limit (traffic filter may then monitor the received data to determine if the amount or rate of received data exceeds a threshold. If the data exceeds the threshold, traffic filter may generate a control message (interpreted as FlowSpec announcement) to be sent to the other network devices, such as routers A-D, that will instruct the other devices to further restrict the rate of data being forwarded to the firewall, col.8 lines 23-39. Traffic filter may then filter the traffic in each category based on a particular rate limit associated with the corresponding category. The rate limit information may be different for one or more of the categories of traffic, traffic filter may begin filtering data traffic based on the particular rate limits. Traffic filter passes an amount of data that does not exceed the rate limits for each category to traffic router, col.10 lines 4-21). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Callon in Compton for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve addressing attacks occurring in the network by detecting rate limiting an amount of data being forwarded by one or more routers…see col.3 lines 49-51.
As per claim 2, the combination of Compton and Callon discloses receiving a second FlowSpec announcement; determining that the second FlowSpec announcement does not pass the acceptability test; and in response to determining that the second FlowSpec announcement to the router (Compton: see par. 112-113).
As per claims 3, 19, the combination of Compton and Callon discloses wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test further comprises determining that a field of the first FlowSpec announcement has a value that is an element of a set of allowed values for the field (Callon: see col.9 lines 59-col.3). The motivation for claim 3 is the same motivation as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 18, the combination of Compton and Callon discloses wherein: the first router is configured to operate as a route reflector, the system further comprises a second router, the second router being a FlowSpec-enabled router, and the first router is configured to forward the FlowSpec announcement to the second router (Compton: see fig.11, par. 105-106, 112-113).
Claims 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton (Pub. No. US 2022/0116417) in view of Callon et al (Pat. No. US 7389537) as applied to claims 1, 17 above, and in further view of Loibl et al (NPL: RFC 8955, from Applicant’s IDS).
As per claim 4, the combination of Compton and Callon does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the field is the action code field of the first FlowSpec announcement, the value of the field is the action code for traffic rate limiting, and the set of allowed values includes the action code for traffic rate limiting. However Loibl discloses wherein: the field is the action code field of the first FlowSpec announcement, the value of the field is the action code for traffic rate limiting, and the set of allowed values includes the action code for traffic rate limiting (see section 7.2, 7.3). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Loibl in the combination of Compton and Callon for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would expand routing information with Flow Specification, the routing system can take advantage of the ACL or firewall capabilities in the router’s forwarding path...see Loibl, section 1.
As per claim 5, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test further comprises determining that a source IP prefix of the first FlowSpec announcement falls within a set range (Loibl: see section 4.3.2). The motivation for claim 5 is the same motivation as in claim 4 above.
As per claim 6, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses wherein the set range is the range of IP prefixes not equal to 0.0.0.0/0 (Loibl: see section 4.3.2). The motivation for claim 6 is the same motivation as in claim 4 above.
As per claim 7, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test further comprises determining that a destination IP prefix of the first FlowSpec announcement falls within a set range (Loibl: see section 4.3.1). The motivation for claim 7 is the same motivation as in claim 4 above.
As per claim 8, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses wherein the set range is the range of IP prefixes not equal to 0.0.0.0/0 (Loibl: see section 4.3.1). The motivation for claim 8 is the same motivation as in claim 4 above.
As per claim 9, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses establishing a first border gateway protocol (BGP) session between a first monitoring device and a FlowSpec gateway, wherein the receiving of the first FlowSpec announcement comprises receiving the first FlowSpec announcement, by the FlowSpec gateway, in the first BGP session (Compton: see par. 105-106).
As per claim 10, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses establishing a second BGP session between a second monitoring device and the FlowSpec gateway, the second BGP session existing concurrently with the first BGP session; receiving a second FlowSpec announcement, by the FlowSpec gateway, in the second BGP session; determining that the second FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test; and in response to determining that the second FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test, forwarding the second FlowSpec announcement to the router (Loibl: see section 6). The motivation for claim 10 is the same motivation as in claim 4 above.
As per claim 11, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses wherein: the field is the action code field of the first FlowSpec announcement, the value of the field is the action code for traffic marking, and the set of allowed values includes the action code for traffic marking (Loibl: see section 7.5). The motivation for claim 11 is the same motivation as in claim 4 above.
As per claim 12, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test further comprises determining that a network size corresponding to an IP prefix field of the first FlowSpec announcement is less than or equal to a set maximum network size for traffic marking (Callon: see col.10 lines 15-21). The motivation for claim 12 is the same motivation as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 13, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses wherein the determining that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test further comprises determining that the autonomous system number of the origin of the first FlowSpec announcement is among a list of acceptable autonomous system numbers (Loibl: section 1). The motivation for claim 13 is the same motivation as in claim 4 above.
As per claim 14, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses sending, to a syslog processing system, a report indicating that the first FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test (Loibl: section 11.2-section 12). The motivation for claim 14 is the same motivation as in claim 4 above.
As per claim 15, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses
receiving, from the router, a message indicating the number of FlowSpec rules currently being applied (Loibl: see section 4); determining that the number of FlowSpec rules currently being applied equals a set maximum number of FlowSpec rules (Loibl: see section 4.1; the highest value that can be represented is 4095); receiving a second FlowSpec announcement; determining that the second FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test (Loibl: see section 6); and in response to determining that the second FlowSpec announcement passes the acceptability test and that the number of FlowSpec rules currently being applied equals the set maximum number of FlowSpec rules: not forwarding the second FlowSpec announcement to the router (Loibl: see Traffic Filtering, sections 5, 12); and sending, to a syslog processing system, a report indicating that the second FlowSpec announcement has not been distributed (Loibl: section 9-10).
As per claim 16, the combination of Compton, Callon and Loibl discloses buffering the second FlowSpec announcement (Callon: see col.10 lines 63-65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to network management, and for regulating FlowSpec filters in a network.
Liang et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0140960); “FlowSpec Message Processing Method and System, and Apparatus”;
-Teaches the controller may add the application interface rule to the BGP route attribute information, to complete sending of the FlowSpec message by extending the BGP route attribute information…see par. 28-33.
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 GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights