DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 12/10/2024 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are “means to be remotely controlled so as to approach a geographical position of a second node of the network”, and “means to analyze and filter at least part of the traffic” in claim 1,”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: para 201, “ capacity (memory, processing means (processor, working memory, etc.), bandwidth, or others) of the suspicious network node (denoted “R2” in the figures where it is represented)”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “means to be remotely controlled so as to approach a geographical position of a second node of the network”, and “means to analyze and filter at least part of the traffic” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 2-6 do not cure the deficiency of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph, for their dependency upon claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,704.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is substantially similar in nature of US Patent No. 12,206,704. See the table below:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,206,704
1. A mobile object configured to provide assistance to a communication network capable of routing traffic characteristic of a computer attack and needing thereby assistance, a managing of the assistance comprising, upon detecting a computer attack, identifying at least a first node of the network, requiring mitigation intervention, and identifying a traffic routing policy in the network, wherein the mobile object comprises: means to be remotely controlled so as to approach a geographical position of a second node of the network, the second node being determined relative to the first node according to the traffic routing policy; at least one communication interface to connect to at least the second node; and means to analyze and filter at least part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object via at least the second node in accordance with the traffic routing policy.
2. The mobile object according to claim 1, being equipped with a processing circuit comprising computing resources providing computing capabilities for processing at least the part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object.
3. The mobile object according to claim 1, configured to establish communication by radiofrequency link in order to connect to at least the second node.
4. The mobile object of claim 1, configured to: upon reception of a graft message, move to a location of the second node and establish a connection of the mobile object to the second node, the second node being designated in the graft message.
5. The mobile object of claim 1, configured to: upon reception of a routing policy message, routing at least one traffic according to the routing rule.
6. The mobile object of claim 5, wherein the routing is performed through the second node.
1. A method for managing assistance to a communication network capable of routing traffic characteristic of a computer attack of a denial-of-service type, the method comprising: upon detecting a computer attack, identifying at least a first node of the network, requiring mitigation intervention, and identifying a traffic routing policy in the network; providing at least one mobile object comprising at least one communication interface for connecting to at least one node of the network; controlling a movement of the mobile object so as to connect the mobile object to at least a second node of the network determined relative to the first node according to the traffic routing policy; and controlling at least part of the traffic routed by the network, so as to redirect the part of the traffic to the mobile object via at least the second node of the network, wherein the mobile object is configured to analyze and filter at least the part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object, and wherein the movement of the mobile object is remotely controlled to approach a geographical position of the second node.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the second node corresponds to the first node.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of mobile objects is provided, each comprising at least one communication interface for communicating at least between mobile objects, and a first mobile object among the plurality of mobile objects is controlled so as to connect to at least the second node of the network.
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein the identification of the first node of the network and of the traffic routing policy in the network is carried out by a mitigation server embedded in one of the mobile objects.
5. The method according to claim 3, wherein the computer attack is detected by a second mobile object, connected to the network.
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the computer attack is detected by the mobile object, controlled to connect to at least the second node.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the computer attack is detected by a third node of the network.
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile object is equipped with a processing circuit comprising computing resources providing computing capabilities for processing at least the part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object.
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile object is configured to establish communication by radiofrequency link in order to connect to at least the second node.
10. The method according to claim 1, comprising: sending a graft message to the mobile object, in order to command a movement of the mobile object and establish a connection of the mobile object to the second node, designated in the graft message; sending a routing policy message to the mobile object, in order to command at least one traffic routing rule for routing by the mobile object; and sending a routing policy message to at least the second node, in order to command at least one traffic routing rule for routing by the second node.
11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the sending of the messages is performed by at least one mitigation server linked with the mobile object.
12. A non-transitory computer storage medium, storing instructions of a computer program, causing implementing the method according to claim 1, when the instructions are executed by a processor.
13. A system for managing assistance to a communication network capable of routing traffic characteristic of a computer attack of a denial-of-service type, the system comprising at least: a mobile object comprising at least one communication interface for connecting to at least one node of the network; a mitigation server configured for, in response to detection of a computer attack: identifying at least a first node of the network, requiring mitigation intervention, identifying a traffic routing policy in the network, controlling a movement of the mobile object so as to connect the mobile object to at least a second node of the network, determined relative to the first node according to the traffic routing policy, and controlling at least part of the traffic routed by the network, so as to redirect the part of the traffic to the mobile object via at least the second node of the network, wherein the mobile object is configured to analyze and filter at least the part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object, and wherein the mobile object is configured to establish communication by radiofrequency link in order to connect to at least the second node, and the movement of the mobile object is remotely controlled to approach a geographical position of the second node.
14. A mitigation server for assisting a communication network capable of routing traffic characteristic of a computer attack of a denial-of-service type, the mitigation server being configured for, in response to detection of a computer attack: identifying at least a first node of the network, requiring mitigation intervention, identifying a traffic routing policy in the network, controlling a movement of at least one mobile object, the mobile object comprising at least one communication interface for connecting to at least one node of the network, the movement controlling being performed so as to connect the mobile object to at least a second node of the network, determined relative to the first node according to the traffic routing policy, and controlling at least part of the traffic routed by the network, so as to redirect the part of the traffic to the mobile object via at least the second node of the network, wherein the mobile object is configured to analyze and filter at least the part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object, and wherein the mobile object is configured to establish communication by radiofrequency link in order to connect to at least the second node, and the movement of the mobile object is remotely controlled to approach a geographical position of the second node.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 .
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.
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 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 present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konda et al. (US Patent Application No. 20200067974) (Hereinafter Konda) in view of Correnti et al. (US Patent Application No. 20190199756) (Hereinafter Correnti).
As per claim 1, Correnti discloses a mobile object configured to provide assistance to a communication network capable of routing traffic characteristic of a computer attack and needing thereby assistance, a managing of the assistance comprising, upon detecting a computer attack, identifying at least a first node of the network, requiring mitigation intervention, and identifying a traffic routing policy in the network, wherein the mobile object comprises:
means to be remotely controlled so as to approach a geographical position of a second node of the network (fig 1, para 13, 33, monitoring system that can detect a hacking drone), the second node being determined relative to the first node according to the traffic routing policy (fig 2, para 60 electing one or more network adjustment policies);
at least one communication interface to connect to at least the second node (100, fig 1-3, para 73, drone communicating with network ).
Correnti does not explicitly disclose means to analyze and filter at least part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object via at least the second node in accordance with the traffic routing policy. However, Konda discloses Correnti means to analyze and filter at least part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object via at least the second node in accordance with the traffic routing policy (fig 1, element 165, para 64, the cloud service forwards the authorization and any mitigation policy to the DDoS mitigator, the traffic associated with the DDoS attack). 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 Konda and Correnti. The motivation would have been to build the network that provide the monitoring and detecting system, that the unauthorized drone is communicating or attempting to communicate with a network.
The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
As per claim 2, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivation as claim 1, above. In addition, Konda discloses being equipped with a processing circuit comprising computing resources providing computing capabilities for processing at least the part of the traffic redirected to the mobile object (para 64, the cloud service forwards the authorization and any mitigation policy to the DDoS mitigator).
As per claim 3, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivation as claim 1, above. In addition, Correnti discloses configured to establish communication by radiofrequency link in order to connect to at least the second node (fig 1, para 117, the system leverages GPS information from the one or more user devices to determine whether the one or more user devices are close enough to the sensors the module 322, the camera 330, and the one or more drone detecting sensors).
As per claim 4, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivation as claim 1, above. In addition, Correnti discloses configured to: upon reception of a graft message, move to a location of the second node and establish a connection of the mobile object to the second node, the second node being designated in the graft message (fig 2, para 54, monitoring system components communicating using encrypted messages).
As per claim 5, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivation as claim 1, above. In addition, Correnti discloses configured to: upon reception of a routing policy message, routing at least one traffic according to the routing rule (fig 2, para 60, selecting one or more network adjustment policies; para 68, transmit instruction)..
As per claim 6, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivation as claim 1, above. In addition, Correnti discloses wherein the routing is performed through the second node (fig 1,2, para 44, drone communications and features of network data may be indirect ).
Conclusion
Please see the attached PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI whose telephone number is (571)272-3976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Carl G Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights