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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on May 08, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Specification
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Specification submitted on May 08, 2025 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Drawings submitted on May 08, 2025 have been accepted.
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 2-10 and 12-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each group of training samples”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 2. Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claims 2 and 12 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the nodes”. There are multiple previously recited nodes and it is unclear as to which particular nodes the limitation is referring. Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 3. Dependent claims 4-10 and 14-20 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claims 3 and 13 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the sigmoid function”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 4. Dependent claims 5-10 and 15-20 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claims 4 and 14 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the vantage point that receives routing information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Also, claim 5 recites the limitation “and p’” without any language to p’ following the limitation. It is unclear what the scope of this limitation is. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 5. Dependent claims 6-10 and 16-10 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claims 5 and 15 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the abnormal routing change” and “the abnormal routing changes”. There are multiple previously recited abnormal routing changes and it is unclear as to which particular abnormal routing changes the limitations are referring. Also, claim 8 recites the limitation “the prefix abnormal event ev”. There are multiple previously recited prefix abnormal event ev and it is unclear as to which particular prefix abnormal event ev the limitation is referring. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 8. Dependent claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claims 8 and 18 without further remedying the indefinite language.
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) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapira et al. (“AP2Vec: An Unsupervised Approach for BGP Hijacking Detection” and hereinafter referred to as Shapira) in view of Earl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0194918 and hereinafter referred to as Earl).
At to claim 1, Shapira discloses an inter-domain routing anomaly detection method based on network representation learning, comprising:
performing network representation learning of Internet autonomous system relationships under an offline condition (pg. 2257 section IV, pg. 2259 section VI A., pg. 2260 section VI B., and pg. 2266 section IX, Shapira teaches learning vector representations of autonomous systems using model training on batches of data (i.e. offline condition));
monitoring a routing change of a plurality of inter-domain routing vantage points in real time, updating global routing in response to receiving a border gateway protocol update message, and recording a routing change when the routing change is detected (pg. 2257 section III and pp. 2260-261 section VI B., Shapira teaches detecting when paths change and recording the changes);
in response to detecting the routing change, calculating a path difference value before and after the routing change, and when the path difference value is greater than a threshold, determining that the routing change is an abnormal routing change (pg. 2255 section I and pp. 2260-261 section VI B., Shapira teaches determining an edit difference, comparing to a threshold, and determining suspect/hijack events); and
performing attribution on the abnormal routing change, aggregating the abnormal routing change into an abnormal event, and issuing an alarm (pg. 2256 section I, pp. 2260-261 section VI B., and pg. 2266 section VIII C., Shapira teaches generating a suspect/hijack event and presenting an alert to a human operator.). Shapira does not specifically disclose updating global routing in response to receiving a border gateway protocol update message as claimed. However, Earl does disclose
updating global routing in response to receiving a border gateway protocol update message (paragraphs [0025], [0032] and [0039], Earl teaches global updates.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shapira with the teachings of Earl for updating global routing because this would improve security.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 recites, inter alia, “constructing a directed graph using relationship data of autonomous systems;… determining whether training converges based on a decrease of a loss function value, and if the training does not converge, repeating processes of training sample sampling and feature vector updating until the training converges.” The prior art was not found to disclose these limitations in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 2 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Claim 12 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art for similar reasons to claim 2. Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights