CTNF 19/005,551 CTNF 80724 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 This office action is in response to the application filed on or reply to the remarks of 12/30/2024. The instant application has claims 1-20 pending. The system, method and medium for identifying the plurality of traffic and applying an classifier. There a total of 20 claims.. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawing filed on 12/30/2024 has been accepted and in compliance of 37 CFR 1.83 & 37 CFR 1.84. Specification The disclosure filed on 12/30/2024 is accepted. Priority 02-09 AIA Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: The current application was filed on 12/30/2024, which is later than termination of proceeding or payment of issue fee dated on 11/18/2024 for previously filed application 17/531063. That is, the co-pending status of parent case is not present therefore claims to priority of previous applications, US App # 17/531063( now US Patent #12184694) or US App # 16512474(now US Patent # 11223653) cannot be given. Thus, the priority claimed is denied. See MPEP 1504.20 & MPEP 21.07 citation below underline for emphasis. 02-11 AIA This application is claiming the benefit of prior-filed application No. 17/531063 and 16/512474 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Copendency between the current application and the prior application is required. Since the applications are not copending, the benefit claim to the prior-filed application is improper. Applicant is required to delete the claim to the benefit of the prior-filed application, unless applicant can establish copendency between the applications. The applicant is required to delete in Application Data Sheet and the Specifications mention of the priority to previous application. The updated ADS and specifications needs to be filed. 1504.20 Benefit Under 35 U.S.C. 120 [R-10.2019] [AltContent: rect] 35 U.S.C. 120 Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States. [Editor Note: Applicable to a patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 120 (pre-AIA) for the law otherwise applicable.] An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7) , to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section. 201.07 Continuation Application [R-08.2017] At any time before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on an earlier application, an applicant may have recourse to filing a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in order to introduce into the application a new set of claims and to establish a right to further examination by the Office . A continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available only for design applications, but not international design applications), however, must be filed prior to payment of the issue fee unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application. In addition, a continuation or divisional application may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a nonprovisional design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b) (except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the CPA is filed on or after September 16, 2012), and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor. Use form paragraph 2.05 to remind applicant of possible continuation status. [AltContent: rect] Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12184694 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an broader version of claims of ‘694 patent, i.e. the instant claims are anticipated by ‘694 patent claims . US App # 19005551 US Patent # 12184694 Comments 1. A method comprising:obtaining, at a device, one or more packets of a traffic session in a network;determining, by the device, a fingerprint for a particular packet of the one or more packets that matches a filter;identifying, by the device, a plurality of traffic sessions whose packets match the fingerprint, wherein each of the plurality of traffic sessions is associated with at least one process; andassociating, by the device, a process with the traffic session by applying a classifier to the plurality of traffic sessions. 1. A method comprising:obtaining, at a device, one or more packets of a traffic session in a network comprising at least one QUIC packet;determining, by the device and for a particular packet of the one or more packets that matches a filter, a fingerprint for the particular packet;identifying, by the device, a plurality of traffic sessions whose packets match the fingerprint, wherein each of the plurality of traffic sessions is associated with at least one process; andassociating, by the device, a process with the traffic session by applying a classifier to the plurality of traffic sessions. The patent (US 12184694) anticipates claims (1-20) of instant application, because the patent claims (1-20, genus) teaches all the elements/features of the examined claim (a-b, sub-genus, e.g. has less of the same limitations than the patent). Claims of instant application are effectively a subset of the claims in the patent. Thus, the entire scope of the patent reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. Therefore, a patent to the instant applicant would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should it issue after the genus (conflicting patent). Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent App # 19/060062. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an broader version of claims of ‘062 patent application, i.e. the instant claims are anticipated by ‘062 patent application claims, i.e. claims 1 + claim 5 + claim 9 yields similar to claim 1 of ‘062 patent application illustrating the similar subject matter. US App # 19005551 US App # 19/060062 Comments 1. A method comprising:obtaining, at a device, one or more packets of a traffic session in a network;determining, by the device, a fingerprint for a particular packet of the one or more packets that matches a filter;identifying, by the device, a plurality of traffic sessions whose packets match the fingerprint, wherein each of the plurality of traffic sessions is associated with at least one process; andassociating, by the device, a process with the traffic session by applying a classifier to the plurality of traffic sessions. 5. The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 4, wherein the communications protocol comprises QUIC,TLS, HTTP, or SSH. 8. The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 6, wherein the host model is modeled based on previous traffic sessions of a host device. 1. A method comprising: obtaining, at a device, one or more packets of an encrypted QUIC traffic session in a network; determining, by the device, a plurality of application-specific flows multiplexed within the encrypted QUIC traffic session using a flexible fingerprint definition applied to extract a fingerprint for a particular packet that matches a filter;querying, by the device, a fingerprint database that maintains database entries listing processes and their destinations that have been previously observed using the fingerprint across multiple protocols and associating a plurality of packets within the encrypted QUIC traffic session with a first application-specific flow of the plurality of application-specific flows by applying a machine learning classifier to one or more packets from the encrypted QUIC traffic session, wherein the machine learning classifier is configured to identify a most probable client process that initiated the encrypted QUIC traffic session based on the fingerprint and destination context information and determining, by the device, that the most probable client process comprises one of malware or a security vulnerability requiring updating or removal from an endpoint. The patent application (US 19/0660062) anticipates claims (1-20) of instant application, because the patent claims (1-18, genus) teaches all the elements/features of the examined claim (a-b, sub-genus, e.g. has less of the same limitations than the patent). Claims of instant application are effectively a subset of the claims in the patent. Thus, the entire scope of the patent reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. Therefore, a patent to the instant applicant would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should it issue after the genus (conflicting patent) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109995601 to Sun in view of US Patent 10320813 to Ahmed . Regarding claim 1, 11, 20, Sun discloses A method comprising: obtaining, at a device, one or more packets of a traffic session in a network(Abstract & Page 4 ¶ starting “ inputting the sample traffic…” to ¶ ending “classifying and triggering…”, the packets from network are analyzed); determining, by the device, a fingerprint for a particular packet of the one or more packets that matches a filter(Page 4 ¶ starting “The dynamic operation..”, the type of objects is identified); identifying, by the device, a plurality of traffic sessions whose packets match the fingerprint, wherein each of the plurality of traffic sessions is associated with at least one process(Page 7 S1013-S0131, the classifier is determined for analysis & Page 5 ¶ starting ”analyzing the sample traffic..”). But sun does not disclose associating, by the device, a process with the traffic session by applying a classifier to the plurality of traffic sessions. In the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Ahmed discloses associating, by the device, a process with the traffic session by applying a classifier to the plurality of traffic sessions(Fig. 1 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8 & Col 3 Ln 20-Col 4 Ln 4, the classifying the packets) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Sun invention to incorporate associating, by the device, a process with the traffic session by applying a classifier to the plurality of traffic sessions for the advantage of provide and threat detection of the packets as taught in Ahmed see Col 4 Ln 26-55. Regarding claim 2, 12, The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein determining the fingerprint for the particular packet is based only on header information of the particular packet(Page 9 S1031, the key fields are analyzed). Regarding claim 3, 13, The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein the one or more packets are part of a data flow that is directed to a server and sent prior to the server sending a response(Page 7 ¶ starting S101-¶ ending S103, the CNN-model based on previous traffic). Regarding claim 4,14 The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 1, where the one or more packets are based on a communications protocol with combinatorial header information(Page 5 ¶ starting ”analyzing the sample traffic..”, protocol is determined). . Regarding claim 5, 15. The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 4, wherein the communications protocol comprises QUIC,TLS, HTTP, or SSH(Page 5 ¶ starting ”analyzing the sample traffic..”, protocol is determined). Regarding claim 6, 16, The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 1, further comprising: enhancing, by the device, the classifier with a host model(Page 7 ¶ starting S101-¶ ending S103, the CNN-model based on previous traffic). . Regarding claim 7, The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 6, wherein the host model is associated with a host device of the network that sent the one or more packets(Page 7 ¶ starting S101-¶ ending S103, the CNN-model based on previous traffic). . Regarding claim 8, 17, The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 6, wherein the host model is modeled based on previous traffic sessions of a host device(Page 7 ¶ starting S101-¶ ending S103, the CNN-model based on previous traffic). Regarding claim 9, 18, The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Sun discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein the plurality of traffic sessions is according to a plurality of different communications protocols(Page 5 ¶ starting ”analyzing the sample traffic..”, protocol is determined). Regarding claim 10, 19, The combined method/apparatus of Sun and Ahmed, mutatis mutandis, Ahmed discloses the method as in claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the device, that the process associated with the traffic session comprises malware or represents a security threat(Fig. 8 item 725 & Col 4 Ln 26-55) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Pub 20240205244 to Rehak, which discloses the encrypted traffic session is inspected. US Patent Pub 2023/0231857 to Neupane, which discloses the traffic identification. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Venkat Perungavoor whose telephone number is (571)272-7213. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at 571-272-3880. 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. /VENKAT PERUNGAVOOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 Email: venkatanarayan.perungavoor@uspto.gov Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 2 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 3 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 4 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 5 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 6 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 7 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 8 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 9 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 10 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 11 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 12 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 13 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 14 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 15 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 16 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 17 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 18 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 19 Art Unit: 2492 Application/Control Number: 19/005,551 Page 20 Art Unit: 2492
