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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on March 19, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2024-043909 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs.1-13 fails to use solid black lines and content pixelated blurry text. The current drawings are unacceptable for reproduction.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Diener et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2021/0306353.
Claims 1, 6 and 11,
Diener discloses
An analysis method comprising:
acquiring control messages exchanged between a plurality of communication apparatuses included in a communication system (Fig.2- discloses the collection of events in an event log,);
generating, based on the control messages, metrics data which is statistical information, for each of the types of the control messages (para 0026-0027- distribution values are generated from event log include number of each type of events);
generating, based on the control messages, event data which is history information on the control messages (fig. 2- an event log is created. Para 0016-generate an expected maximum of the distribution based on the mean and the second highest value. In some examples, to generate the expected maximum, the processor may sum the mean and the second highest value. In some examples, the distribution of the plurality of values is specific to a particular user and the expected maximum is applied only to the particular user. For example, the distribution of a plurality of values may relate to a historic number of login attempts by a particular user and the expected maximum may be applied for the particular user. In some examples, the distribution of the plurality of values relates to a plurality of users and the expected maximum is applied any user among the plurality of users. In these examples, the distribution of a plurality of values may relate to a historic number of login attempts by the plurality of users (such as a grouping of users or all users in an organization) and the expected maximum may be applied for the plurality of users. [The generated values are an average of the historical value for each of the message types]); and
detecting, based on the metrics data and the event data, occurrence of abnormality in the communication system.(para 0031- a value of a message type exceeds the expect maximum number of message indicates an anomaly. The maximum number is based on historical values from the event log.)
Diener discloses at least one processor and a non-transitory storage medium in paragraph 0014-0015.
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 2, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diener et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2021/0306353 in view of Vasseur et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2020/0314022.
Claims 2, 7 and 12,
Although Diener discloses substantial limitations of the invention, it fails to disclose
identifying, based on at least one of the metrics data and the event data, a cause of the occurrence of the abnormality in the communication system.
In an analogous art, Vasseur discloses
identifying, based on at least one of the metrics data and the event data, a cause of the occurrence of the abnormality in the communication system.(para 0054-discloses a root-cause analysis of a failure that evaluates network events to determine a cause. See fig. 9)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to apply the root-cause detection of Vasseur to the Diener system to produce the predictable result of detecting the cause of anomalies based on control messages.
Claims 3-4, 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Diener et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2021/0306353 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Diener et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2021/0306353 in view KIM et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2024/0205116 .
Claims 3, 8 and 13 recite a condition limitations that is dependent on encrypted messages:
inferring ,in a case where the control messages are encrypted, the types of the control messages based on at least packet sizes and frequencies of the control messages.
The claim limitation is not required to disclose the invention. Thus, claim 3, 8 and 13 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1, 6 and 11, respectively.
Alternatively, when the messages are encrypted, Diener fails to disclose
inferring ,in a case where the control messages are encrypted, the types of the control messages based on at least packet sizes and frequencies of the control messages.
In an analogous art, KIM discloses
inferring ,in a case where the control messages are encrypted, the types of the control messages based on at least packet sizes and frequencies of the control messages. (para 0106- packet size and arrival interval )
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to apply the packet classification of KIM to the Diener system to produce the predictable result of classifying encrypted packets for fault detection.
Claims 4, 9 and 14,
wherein in the process of inferring the types of the control messages, in a case where the control messages are encrypted, the at least one processor infers the types of the control messages encrypted, by using a learning model trained with, as training data, at least packet sizes and frequencies of the control messages that are not encrypted and the types of the control messages. (KIM para 0093- discloses training model with encrypted and unencrypted messages. Also see para 0100)
Same motivation as claim 3.
Claims 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diener et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2021/0306353 in view of Varsanyi et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2023/0308458.
Claims 5, 10 and 15,
Although Diener discloses substantial limitations of the invention, it fails to disclose
wherein in the generating of the event data, the event data is generated by extracting a parameter with use of a template prepared for each of control protocols.
In an analogous art, Varsanyi discloses
wherein in the generating of the event data, the event data is generated by extracting a parameter with use of a template prepared for each of control protocols.(para 0067- subprocess 334 may classify the encapsulation layer as one of a plurality of possible protocols, and subprocess 336 may extract data from the encapsulated data according to a schema, algorithm, or ruleset associated with the protocol. The scheme, ruleset or algorithm is mapped to the template)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to apply the data extraction of Varsanyi to the Diener system to produce the predictable result of extracting data from encrypted messages based on protocol schemas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M COUSINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7746. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00pm EST.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/JMC/Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights