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 .
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.
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 5/2/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,605 B2 (herein the Patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of the Patent respectively.
1. (application) A machine-implemented method for generating a network packet classifier for network security groups in a communications network, the network packet classifier configured to classify network packets based on features grouped into feature types corresponding to header fields of the network packets, the method comprising:
grouping header fields, features, and feature match actions for network packets in the communications network;
based on the grouping of the header fields, features, and feature match actions for network packets in the communications network, generating a single feature classifier to model all rules of a network security group in the communications network; and
using the single feature classifier to process network packets in the communications network.
1. (The Patent) A machine-implemented method for generating a network packet classifier for network security groups, the network packet classifier to be processed by a graph-based packet processor in a communications network, the network packet classifier configured to classify network packets based on features grouped into feature types corresponding to header fields of the network packets, the method comprising:
associating a network security group with a user network in the communications network;
grouping header fields, features, and feature match actions for network packets in the communications network;
based on the grouping of the header fields, features, and feature match actions for network packets in the communications network, generating a single feature classifier to model all rules in the network security group for a data traffic direction; and
using the single feature classifier to process network packets in the communications network.
Claims 2-19 similarly are anticipated by claims 2-20 of the Patent.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans et al. (US 2020/0053012, “Evans”).
As to claim 1, Evans discloses a machine-implemented method for generating a network packet classifier for network security groups in a communications network, the network packet classifier configured to classify network packets based on features grouped into feature types corresponding to header fields of the network packets, the method comprising:
grouping header fields, features, and feature match actions for network packets in the communications network ([0008], a single packet processing graph including classifier nodes, [0073], [0083], grouping rules/features of different header field types and match actions to generate a (n+m) type classifier);
based on the grouping of the header fields, features, and feature match actions for network packets in the communications network, generating a single feature classifier to model all rules of a network security group in the communications network ([0050], a single packet processing graph—read as “single feature classifier”-- including classifier nodes, [0083], an (n+m)-type graph data object matches against two or more header field types, i.e. is one that matches against a combination of header field types. The means by which header field types are selected to make up a combination can be broadly characterised as a heuristic search in which e.g. the cost of packet processing for the graph data structure as a whole is analysed, and new classifier nodes—matching against a combination of header field types—are locally created within the graph data structure if their presence results in a reduction in the cost of processing packets through the graph data structure, [0040]-[0042], [0107], as shown in FIG. 6. The graph fragment is restructured by collapsing the DSCP and destination port classifier nodes to create a combined-type classifier node and then building up the remainder of the graph fragment by sequentially re-applying the rules according to which packets are to be classified. This produces a further DSCP classifier node which receives packets along the no-match output of the combined classifier node, along new path leg N2.sub.1,0 The actions to be applied, as derived from rules B, C, D and F, are indicated in FIG. 6 accordingly. Note that packets are classified according to default rule G, whilst not shown in FIG. 6, on the outputs of all end leaf nodes, [0108], This combination of rules relating to different header field types can be embodied by an (n+m)-type classifier node 601, as shown in FIG. 6, leaving n-type classifier node 603 to match the remaining values, [0003], [0129], packet classification for virtual private networks or network security groups); and
using the single feature classifier to process network packets in the communications network ([0008], packet processing).
As to claim 2, Evans discloses a plurality of fields are associated with the single feature classifier by generating a field to identify an offset and netmask for any part of a network packet to be matched for rules in the network security group ([0065]-[0070]).
As to claim 3, Evans discloses a plurality of features are associated with the single feature classifier by generating a feature to specify a matching field value for a rule in the network security group (fig. 6, a single classifier 601 is generated combining rules (features) about DSCP and destination port and match actions (legs of the classifier)).
As to claim 4, Evans discloses a plurality of feature match actions are associated with the single feature classifier by generating a feature match action in order to group requirements for each rule in the network security group, wherein the feature match action identifies a set of features for a matching rule (fig. 5, 6, [0107]-[0108], set of features such as D+F resulting in an action, C+F resulting in another action…).
As to claim 6, Evans discloses all combinations of matches required by rules for the network security group are programmed as a separate feature match action within the single feature classifier (fig. 5, 6, [0107]-[0108], set of features such as D+F resulting in an action, C+F resulting in another action…).
As to claim 7, Evans discloses the feature match action is a denial of access to a network resource of the communications network ([0005], Discard Packet action).
Claims 8-11, 13, 14 are rejected for the same rationale in claims 1-4, 6, 7. Evans further discloses a system for generating a network packet classifier for network security groups in a communications network, the network packet classifier configured to classify network packets based on features grouped into feature types corresponding to header fields of the network packets, the system comprising: a processing unit; and a computer readable medium having encoded thereon computer readable instructions ([0169]-[0170]) that when executed by the processing unit cause the system to: implement steps in claims 1-4, 6, 7.
Claims 15-18, 20 are rejected for the same rationale in claims 1-4, 6. Evans further discloses a computer readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer readable instructions ([0169]-[0170]) that when executed by a system cause the system to: implement steps in claims 1-4, 6.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Seddigh et al. (US 6,975,592, “Seddigh”).
As to claims 5, 12, 19, Evans does not disclose the rules in the network security group are OR matched.
Seddigh discloses the rules in the network security group are OR matched (col. 5, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Seddigh’s teachings of combining rules by using logical operators for packet classification to Evans’s teachings in order to enhance Evans’s system by efficiently expressing combined rules by the logical operators.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in form PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEU T HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1253. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 AM -5 PM.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/HIEU T HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
