DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is response to communication: response to amendments/arguments filed on 07/27/2026
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application. Claims 4-12 are new.
No IDS has been filed for this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed concerning the rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Nenov does not teach presenting predetermined or configurable health information and event logs on an integrated display based on occurrence of a predetermined or configurable trigger event within a network security device, but merely teaches a local user interface for command/control and packet/attack notifications. This is not persuasive. As stated by the applicant, Nenov’s security device does teach an interface for command/controls and for attack notifications. Such notifications on the display are health information, and such information is displayed based on trigger events within the network security device (see paragraph 52 and 53, wherein the interface allows users to enable/disable packet filtering rules; the packets that are received, according to such rules, are shown accordingly on the display). Also, as seen in paragraph 60 of Nenov, the reference teaches notifications are recorded in a log. Throughout Nenov, such information is displayed on the network device according to the triggers input by the user. Also, see paragraph 62 and 63, wherein various actions to perform are specified in rules database; security device may then output visible alerts on security device as seen in paragraphs 60 and 63) Applicant’s arguments are thus not persuasive. See amended rejection below to address dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nenov US Patent Application Publication 2018/0115580 (Nenov).
As per claim 1, Nenov teaches a method comprising: providing a network security device with an interated display; and facilitating determination of an operating status of the network security device by presenting one or more of predetermined or configurable health information and event logs on the integrated display based on an occurrence of a predetermined or configuratble trigger event within the network security device (Figure 2B; paragraph 52 with multi-touch display on security device; paragraph 53 wherein display may display status of the security device; see also paragraph 60 wherein notifications may be recorded in a log, and displayed on display screen; see also paragraph 78 wherein network security device monitors packets matching selected filter and will display accordingly).
As per claim 2, Nenov teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processing resources of a security appliance, cause the security appliance to: receive selections relating to one or more of health information and event logs to be displayed on an integrated display of the security appliance based on occurrence of a predetermined or configurable trigger event within the network security device; monitor for the occurrence of the predetermined or configurable trigger event; and present the selected one or more of health information and event logs on the integrated display in accordance with a specified screen configuration (Figure 2B; paragraph 52 with multi-touch display on security device; see paragraph 52 wherein user sets/modifies/enables/disables rules; paragraph 53 wherein display may display status of the security device; see also paragraph 60 wherein notifications may be recorded in a log, and displayed on display screen; see paragraph 63 wherein alerts and notifications may be displayed on display screen according to the rules; see also paragraph 78 wherein network security device monitors packets matching selected filter and will display information accordingly).
As per claim 3, Nenov teaches a security appliance comprising: an integrated display; one or more processing resources; and isntructions that when executed by the one or more processor resources cause the security appliance to: receive selections relating to one or more of health information and event logs to be displayed on an integrated display of the security appliance based on occurrence of a predetermined or configurable trigger event within the network security device; monitor for the occurrence of the predetermined or configurable trigger event; and present the selected one or more of health information and event logs on the integrated display in accordance with a specified screen configuration (Figure 2B; paragraph 52 with multi-touch display on security device; see paragraph 52 wherein user sets/modifies/enables/disables rules; paragraph 53 wherein display may display status of the security device; see also paragraph 60 wherein notifications may be recorded in a log, and displayed on display screen; see paragraph 63 wherein alerts and notifications may be displayed on display screen according to the rules; see also paragraph 78 wherein network security device monitors packets matching selected filter and will display information accordingly).
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) 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nenov as applied above, in view of Matityahu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0168659 (Matityahu)
As per claim 4, Nenov does not explicitly teach wherein the health information includes at least one hardware health metric of the network security device. However, displaying such information would have been obvious, if not inherent. For example, in Nenov paragraph 51 and 52, Nenov teaches indicating statuses of the wifi access point, switch, firewall, virus scanner, etc. Such status are health metrics, and would have been obvious, if not inherent, that such information is “hardware health metrics.” However, for a more explicit teaching on hardware health metrics, see Matityahu (paragraph 64 with network parameter including utilizing/bandwidth rate; see paragraph 58 wherein such parametesr are displayed on physical display).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nenov with Matityahu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition as it allows personnel to quickly access the health of each component without logging in (paragraph 58).
As per claim 5, Nenov teaches wherein the at least one hardware health metric is selected from i) a temperature of one or more processing resources, ii) processing resource utilization, iii) fan speed, iv) memory utilization, v) disk space, vi uplink or downlink speed or bandwidth usage, vii) processing resource voltage, viii) real-time power usage, and ix) clock speed (Matityahu paragraph 64 with bandwidth; also see paragraph 56 and 59).
Claim 7 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claim 8 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claim 11 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nenov as applied above, in view Scott et al. US Patent Application Publication 2004/0148513 (Scott)
As per claim 6, Nenov teaches receiving, by the network security device, a) a selection of trigger events including the predetermined or configurable trigger event (paragraph 52, 53 wehrein users may set up rules;) and wherein said presenting is performed in response to the network security device detecting existence of any of the selected trigger events (paragraphs 52, 53, and throughout). Although Nenov teaches trigger events and even displaying an alert on an integrated display (see paragraph 60, 63, and throughout), Nenov does not explitily teach receiving a desired display configuration of data to be displayed. This would have been obvious though. It is notoriously well known in the art for users to apply settings on how data is to be displayed. However, for a more explicit example, see Scott (paragraph 88 with customizing alarms to provide different views, filter settings,etc).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nenov with Scott. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide a better integration for process and alarms (paragarphs 87-88)
Claim 9 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Conclusion
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 JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. 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).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights