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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW11/3149582, filed on 12/29/2024.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3,and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US-20140146679-A1) in view of Shah (US 20260089566 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a method for reducing network packet load ([0193] “In one embodiment, when any level of congestion is detected by function 6.3.3, function 6.3.1 reduces the capacity available to the entire aggregate of flows that are contained in the congested aggregate and are classified as “best effort” flows”);
wherein the method is implemented by a device and comprises: receiving network packets from an Ethernet physical layer into a receiving slot ([0041] “According to one embodiment, the designation instructions include setting a “diversion field” in a header of the packet to a predefined value. The diversion field may be a pre-defined field in the IP (Layer-3) header or an Ethernet/MAC (Layer-2) header. Different embodiments for designating the packets are disclosed herein below”; [0181] “FIG. 5 relates to the first preferred embodiment and shows an expansion of the function 6, containing sub-function 6.1 to 6.4. The classifier and flow status function 6.1 uses packet header information to generate a flow identity and uses this plus additional information, including a VLAN value, or a measured rate, to look up the QoS treatment of the flow and whether the flow has just started or whether the packet is a continuation of a previously-started flow. The results of this look up are recorded as components of the flow status of the flow and are stored in function 6.4”);
determining whether a packet count of the network packets in the receiving slot exceeds an intermediate threshold value ([0071] “determining if one or several pre-determined thresholds or limits have been reached, or will be reached if the latest arriving packet is transmitted, that provide indications of a change in the capacity requirements of aggregates associated with the flow of this said latest arriving packet, said pre-determined thresholds being based on, but not limited to: [0076] Flow rate or jitter in rate measured on any flow; [0077] Flow rate or jitter in flow rate measured on any aggregate; [0078] Flow count in any aggregates; [0079] Flow discard probability on the flow of the latest arriving packet; [0080] Policy information on any aggregates associated with the flow of the latest arriving packet; [0081] Packet discard measurements on any aggregate; [0082] Packet discard measurements on any flow; [0083] Packet delay measurements on any flow or averaged on any aggregate; and
filtering out first network packets [[from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist]] when the packet count exceeds the intermediate threshold value (Adams [0126] “the packet network includes further means arranged in operation to identify one or more flows that should be discarded when the packet rate, byte rate or the jitter of a rate in any group of flows determine that such a deletion is required.”
Although Adams discloses filtering out first network packets when the packet count exceeds the intermediate threshold value, Adams does not explicitly disclose filtering out first network packets from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist.
Shah further discloses filtering out first network packets from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist ([0016] “For example, the MAC filter module 150 may apply a set of one or more rules, which may include a list of one or more MAC addresses to block (e.g., to disallow from connecting to/receiving service from the wireless access point 100) and/or a list of one or more MAC addresses to permit access, conditional rules, such as to block (or allow) one or more MAC addresses at certain times, days of the week, etc., to block one or more MAC addresses in times of congestion or when a threshold number of other endpoint devices are already on the wireless network (e.g., connected to wireless access point 100), and so forth”), note that a blacklist is interpreted as a list of MAC addresses to block MAC addresses in times of congestion; implementing rules to network packets through the MAC filter module in times of congestion occurs when the demand for network resources exceeds the capacity; thus the MAC filter module filters network packets from MAC addresses by blocking the MAC addresses to reduce congestion.
Adams and Shah are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams to incorporate Shah to include from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist. Doing so would strengthen detection techniques for malicious network traffic from a known history (Shah “This response might be sent if the mobile device has a high Ecount value or is in a “blacklist” of devices with known history of experiencing excessive numbers of ranging failures”).
Regarding claim 3, Adams and Shah disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 listed above. Adams further discloses the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the packet count is lower than a lowest threshold value ([0187] “To indicate to function 6.2 different levels of congestion that have been reached on an aggregate, so that function 6.2 can choose the appropriate number of flows for packet discard actions and, for example select the lowest priority flows first”; [0188] “At any level of congestion, or at a threshold level below the first level that would cause a congestion indication to be sent to function 6.2, the function 6.3 determines whether an increase in bandwidth can be obtained on the aggregate. Or, where congestion levels are falling, or has reached a lowest threshold level below any level that would cause function 6.2 to apply any packet deletion to any arriving packet of that aggregate, to determine whether a decrease in bandwidth is appropriate for the aggregate”); and
restoring an original packet reception setting when the packet count is lower than the lowest threshold value, wherein the lowest threshold value is lower than the intermediate threshold value ([0194] “In a preferred embodiment, when function 6.2.2 receives an indication from 6.3.1 that a best effort aggregate is congested, it marks the entire best effort aggregate as subject to temporary discard of all arriving best effort packets until function 6.3.1 further indicates to function 6.2.2 that congestion has ceased on the said congested best effort aggregate”; [0195] “The function 6.2.1 (see FIG. 6) then begins to delete packets which belong to the flows or flow aggregates that have been selected. This deletion process continues until function 6.3.1 indicates that congestion is diminishing and that lower thresholds have been reached, or that congestion has ceased. When a lower threshold is reached, function 6.2.2 removes some of the flows designated for discard”), note that an original packet reception system are no longer valid or optimal, and it reverts to the original (default) configuration to restore normal operation.
Regarding claim 7, Adams and Shah disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 listed above. Adams further discloses the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, wherein the intermediate threshold value is not a fixed value ([0103] “According to this first aspect of the embodiments of the present invention, optionally a method where, when a packet arrives whose flow is associated with an aggregate where congestion has ceased or where traffic levels on an aggregate have fallen below some threshold indicative of the onset of congestion, or when measurements relating to any rate-based, byte count-based, or packet-count based threshold shows that measured levels are now below level(s) that had previously exceeded one or more such thresholds, then retrieving policy relating to such a change of status of this aggregate and relating to re-grading of the discard probability of the said flow, given that measured levels have fallen or congestion has disappeared”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US20140146679A1) in view of Shah (US 20260089566 A1) and in further view of Love (US 20180172664 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Adams and Shah disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 listed above. Adams further discloses the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the packet count exceeds a highest threshold value ((([0127] “According to this second aspect of the embodiments of the present invention, the packet network includes further means arranged in operation, on the detection that a packet rate, byte rate or the jitter of a rate in any group of flows is equal to or has exceeded a pre-determined threshold, to identify arriving packets associated with one of said communication identifiers stored in said communication identifier store; and forward packets associated with any flow identifier unless the discard probability associated with that flow identifier is set so that all packets are to be temporarily discarded”); and
stopping [receiving advertisement] packets when the packet count exceeds the highest threshold value, wherein the highest threshold value is higher than the intermediate threshold value ([0138] “According to this second aspect of the present invention the packet network includes: Means to determine the choice of flows that should be discarded among flows whose discard priority is the highest among the remaining flows not already selected for discard. Means to limit the flows that should be discarded based on a set of threshold values associated with any group of flows against which is compared measured value(s) of packet rate, byte rate or the jitter in a rate as applied to the aggregate traffic in that said group of flows”).
Although Adams discloses filtering out first network packets when the packet count exceeds the intermediate threshold value, and Shah discloses from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist, the combination of Adams and Shah does not explicitly disclose receiving advertisement packets.
Love further discloses receiving advertisement packets ([0137] “Referring still to FIG. 5B, at time, T5, the second predetermined period of time (P2) ends, and sensor control device 102 ceases to transmit the second set of advertisement packets (AE2). The third address can be different from the first and second addresses. The third rate (AR3) can be different from the first and second rates (AR1, AR2), and the third predetermined period of time (P3) can be also be different from the first and second predetermined periods of time (P1, P2). Sensor control device 102 continues to transmit the third set of advertisement packets (AE3) until time, T6, when the third predetermined period of time (P3) ends”), an advertisement network packet is a type of data packet used to broadcast information about a device, service, or network presence to other devices in a network.
Adams, Shah, and Love are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams in view of Shah to incorporate Love to include receiving advertisement packets. Doing so would strengthen detection techniques for malicious network traffic from a known history (Love [0050] “Handheld relay device 200 can be configured by a manufacturer, for example, to provide a higher degree of priority for failure condition monitoring routines, in terms of memory allocation, processor usage, display usage and/or network bandwidth”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US20140146679A1) in view of Shah (US 20260089566 A1) and in further view of McKinney (US 7693530B1).
Regarding claim 4, Adams and Shah discloses all of the limitation of claim 1 listed above. Adams further discloses wherein when a second number of second network packets [from a second media access control address in the network packets received within a time window] exceeds an abnormal threshold ([0208] “The function 6.3.2 measures rates on individual flows and on aggregates. For aggregates, it also compares the measured rate against one or more predetermined thresholds and indicates an alert to function 6.1 when the aggregate rate is equal to or exceeding one of these thresholds. It also measures the flow rate of a flow. In a preferred embodiment it will include an initial measurement of the flow rate for a sufficiently short interval of time that allows the classifier to be quickly updated about this information and potentially change the classification given to that flow. Again, care must be used so that the interval is sufficiently short, yet long enough that short-term variations in the local rate, due to packet clustering, are not confused with the average rate of the flow”; [0211] “Function 6.3.1.1 is informed by 6.3.3 that congestion thresholds have been reached on an aggregate, either because congestion is increasing or decreasing. The function 6.3.1.1 sends an indication to either a co-located function 6.3.1.2 (FIG. 8) or a remote function 6.3.1.2 (FIG. 9) informing it of the aggregate identity and indicating the threshold congestion level. The function 6.3.1.2 retrieves policy information related to the aggregate and the donor aggregates that may be used to add more bandwidth to the congested aggregate or give back bandwidth from the aggregate when congestion has lowered sufficiently” ), aggregate congestion threshold, from increasing network congestion, is interpreted as exceeding an abnormal threshold.
Although Adams discloses wherein when a second number of second network packets exceeds an abnormal threshold, and Shah discloses from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist, the combination of Adams and Shah does not explicitly disclose from a third media access control address recorded in the blacklist within a time window, and the third media access control address is removed from the blacklist.
McKinney further discloses from a second media access control address in the network packets received within a time window exceeds an abnormal threshold ([Col 7, lines 18- 25] “The blacklist logic may indicate the extent (time) of blacklisting to apply, depending on the extent of failures by the MAC address. For instance, a first threshold may specify that the MAC address should be blocked for a short term period of time (or at certain times/days, etc.) from further ranging, while a higher threshold may specify that the MAC address should be blocked from ranging for a longer period of time, e.g., permanently”; [Col 9, lines 55-64] “At step 202 the REMS platform retrieves from the datastore the MAC address, the blacklist, Ecount and the threshold value for either initiation of short or long term blacklisting”; If at step 214 the Ecount value exceeds the threshold, the processing proceeds to module 218 which updates the data store as indicated 220 by adding the device MAC to the blacklist. The REMS platform sends a message to the base station to send the short term block ranging message (FIG. 2B)”);
the second media access control address is recorded in the blacklist ([Col 10, lines 4-9] “If at step 214 the Ecount value exceeds the threshold, the processing proceeds to module 218 which updates the data store as indicated 220 by adding the device MAC to the blacklist. The REMS platform sends a message to the base station to send the short term block ranging message (FIG. 2B)”).
Adams, Shah, and McKinney are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams in view of Shah to incorporate McKinney to include a media access control address in the network packets received within a time window, and the control address is recorded in the blacklist. Doing so would strengthen detection techniques for malicious network traffic through a time period (McKinney [Col 4, lines 25-28] “This response might be sent if the mobile device has a high Ecount value or is in a “blacklist” of devices with known history of experiencing excessive numbers of ranging failures”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US20140146679A1) in view of Shah (US 20260089566 A1) and in further view of McKinney (US 7693530B1) and in view of Van Oost (US 20180270728 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Adams and Shah discloses all of the limitation of claim 1 listed above. Adams discloses wherein when a third number of third network packets [from a third media access control address recorded in the blacklist within a time window] does not exceed an abnormal threshold ([0205] “In a preferred embodiment, when a packet arrives, its byte count is indicated by function 6.1 to 6.3.3. An amount of tokens equal to this byte count are then placed in a set of “token buckets” (one bucket per aggregate, choosing aggregates which this flow belongs to, where the flow id is determined from the arriving packet). Each token bucket is drained of tokens at a certain pre-defined constant rate that is equivalent to the capacity available to that given aggregate. Alarms correspond to the depth of the bucket (i.e. the quantity of tokens in the bucket, not yet drained away, compared to a set of threshold values. When the quantity of tokens subsequently reduces below that same threshold, the alarm-level is reduced to the next lower level (if any) or the alarm is ceased (if there are no lower levels). In another embodiment, the token bucket may be replaced by a more approximate method that is simpler to calculate. A rate is measured over a short interval determined by a starting point when a packet arrives and a finishing point when another packet arrives, both belonging to the same aggregate” ), aggregate congestion threshold, from decreasing network congestion, is interpreted as not exceeding an abnormal threshold.
Although Adams discloses when a third number of third network packets does not exceed an abnormal threshold, and Shah discloses from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist, the combination of Adams and Shah does not explicitly disclose from a third media access control address recorded in the blacklist within a time window, and the third media access control address is removed from the blacklist.
McKinney further discloses when a third number of third network packets does not exceed an abnormal threshold [(“The blacklist logic may indicate the extent (time) of blacklisting to apply, depending on the extent of failures by the MAC address. For instance, a first threshold may specify that the MAC address should be blocked for a short term period of time (or at certain times/days, etc.) from further ranging, while a higher threshold may specify that the MAC address should be blocked from ranging for a longer period of time, e.g., permanently”; “At step 202 the REMS platform retrieves from the datastore the MAC address, the blacklist, Ecount and the threshold value for either initiation of short or long term blacklisting”; If at 204 the device is not on an existing blacklist, the REMS platform checks to see if the current Ecount value for the device exceeds the threshold retrieved at step 202. If no, the REMS sends a message to the base station to transmit the continue ranging message (FIG. 2C) to the device. The processing goes back to step 200.
Adams, Shah, and McKinney are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams in view of Shah to incorporate McKinney to include a media access control address in the network packets received within a time window, and the control address is recorded in the blacklist. Doing so would strengthen detection techniques for malicious network traffic through a time period (McKinney [Col 4, lines 25-28] “This response might be sent if the mobile device has a high Ecount value or is in a “blacklist” of devices with known history of experiencing excessive numbers of ranging failures”).
Although Adams discloses when a third number of third network packets does not exceed an abnormal threshold, and Shah discloses from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist, and McKinney discloses from a third media access control address recorded in the blacklist within a time window does not exceed an abnormal threshold, the combination of Adams, Shah, and Mckinney does not explicitly disclose the third media access control address is removed from the blacklist.
Van Oost further discloses the third media access control address is removed from the blacklist ([0057] “All non-eligible access points may be instructed by the control entity 13 to apply the same STA MAC blacklist. A white list strategy may be applied on the new target access point, here the second access point 12 while all other access points, here the first access point 11, blacklist the STA MAC. The control entity 13 may instruct the new target access point 12 to whitelist the client MAC address and thus enable the STA 14 to be connected with the access point 12. This way the STA 14 cannot associate anywhere else but with the ideal target access point. This may be enabled by embedding pass/fail logic not only into the control entity 13 but also in the individual access points 11 and 12”), note that a MAC address is moved to the whitelist, or list of allowed addresses.
Adams, Shah, McKinney, and Van Oost are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams in view of Shah to incorporate Van Oost to include a media access control address is removed from the blacklist. Doing so would strengthen detection techniques for malicious network traffic through a time period (Van Oost [0020] “According to embodiments of the present invention, the method further includes integrating additional access points into the wireless local area network system; and instructing all non-eligible access points with the blacklisted a media access control (MAC) address using the control entity”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US20140146679A1) in view of Shah (US 20260089566 A1) and in further view of Morley (US-20160162275-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Adams and Shah disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 listed above. Although Adams discloses filtering out first network packets when the packet count exceeds the intermediate threshold value, and Shah discloses control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist, the combination of references does not explicitly disclose, wherein the blacklist is updated by a central processing unit coupled to the device.
Morley further discloses the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blacklist is updated by a central processing unit coupled to the device ([0064] “In this particular example, the Update Server 35 is shown as including the whitelist and blacklist databases 530 discussed earlier. The whitelist and blacklist databases 530 are accessible to the central processing unit (CPU) 510 of the Update Server 35. Additional databases and computer storage device(s) 540 are also accessible, such as those storing application malfunction reports, etc.”)
Adams, Shah, and Morley are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams in view of Shah to incorporate Morley to include blacklist is updated by a central processing unit coupled to the device. Doing so would strengthen detection techniques for malicious network traffic by updating the database (Morley [0065] “As outlined earlier, the identification and isolation of incompatible applications during platform upgrades that is effectuated by Update Server 35 involves determining platform versions and can also entail empirically tracking application whitelist and blacklist status in database 530. ”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US20140146679A1) in view of Shah (US 20260089566 A1) and in further view of Han (US-20160156526-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Adams and Shah disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 listed above. Although Adams discloses filtering out first network packets when the packet count exceeds the intermediate threshold value, and Shah discloses from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist, the combination of Adams and Shah does not explicitly disclose the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, wherein the network packets are received by the device from the Ethernet physical layer via a Reduced Media Independent Interface (RMII).
Han further discloses the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, wherein the network packets are received by the device from the Ethernet physical layer via a Reduced Media Independent Interface (RMII) (([0013] “The dedicated network connection controller 122 is electrically connected to the baseboard management controller 11 and the dedicated network connection port 121, and the dedicated network connection controller 122 is an Ethernet physical layer (PHY) chip. However, the present invention is not so restricted”; [0015] “The general network connection controller 143 is a network controller with sideband interface (NCSI), and the general network connection controller 143a is a network controller with reduce media independent interface (RMII), such as ALOM RMII. In accordance with the other embodiments, the network controllers with the function of MII, GMII, SGMII, or XGMII can also be used in the present invention”).)
Adams, Shah, and Han are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams in view of Shah to incorporate Han to include a Reduced Media Independent Interface (RMII. Doing so would connect the physical layer while reducing noise (Han [0016] “Under the normal state, the baseboard management controller 11 is utilized for sending a connection signal S1 under a dedicated management network connection status. The connection signal is a RMII signal and the dedicated management network connection status is the status in which the manager wants to check the system information such as the version of firmware and the sensed temperature”).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US20140146679A1) in view of Shah (US 20260089566 A1) and in further view of Hilde (US 20070237088 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Adams and Shah disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 listed above. Although Adams discloses filtering out first network packets when the packet count exceeds the intermediate threshold value, and Shah discloses from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist, the combination of Adams and Shah does not explicitly disclose the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device is an Ethernet Media Access Controller (EMAC).
Hidle further discloses the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device is an Ethernet Media Access Controller (EMAC) ([0008] “In another embodiment, a network traffic monitoring device for an Ethernet network may be connected to a connection to a physical media and a media access controller of the Ethernet network. The monitoring device may have a filter for identifying packets of one or more known media access controllers and a memory for storing known media access controller addresses. An access controller of the monitoring device may prevent broadcasts of packets by the media access controller to the media access controller addresses not stored in the memory”).
Adams, Shah, and Hilde are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams in view of Shah to incorporate Hilde to include an Ethernet Media Access Controller (EMAC). Doing so would determine controlling and authenticating which devices can connect to the Ethernet network (Hilde [0029] “An access controller 314 determines if the address is associated with known MAC address in memory 310. If the MAC address is not associated with a known MAC address, the MAC address associated with the node may be removed from memory 310”).
Regarding claim 10, Adams and Shah disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 listed above. Adams further discloses a device for reducing network packet load, comprising: a processor; and computer storage media, coupled to the processor and configured to store computer- readable instructions for instructing the processor to execute the method for reducing network packet load described in claim 1 ([0234] “The invention is related to the use of computer system 1000 for implementing the techniques described herein. In an embodiment, the inventive system may reside on a machine such as computer platform 1001. According to one embodiment of the invention, the techniques described herein are performed by computer system 1000 in response to processor 1005 executing one or more sequences of one or more instructions contained in the volatile memory 1006. Such instructions may be read into volatile memory 1006 from another computer-readable medium, such as persistent storage device 1008. Execution of the sequences of instructions contained in the volatile memory 1006 causes processor 1005 to perform the process steps described herein. In alternative embodiments, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement the invention”).
Although Adams discloses filtering out first network packets when the packet count exceeds the intermediate threshold value, and Shah discloses from media access control addresses recorded in a blacklist according to the blacklist, the combination of Adams and Shah does not explicitly disclose the method for reducing network packet load as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device is an Ethernet Media Access Controller (EMAC).
Hidle further discloses wherein the device is an Ethernet Media Access Controller (EMAC) (([0009] In another embodiment, a network traffic monitoring device for an Ethernet network may be connected to a connection to a physical media and a media access controller of the Ethernet network”).
Adams, Shah, and Hilde are analogous in detecting network activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adams in view of Shah to incorporate Hilde to include an Ethernet Media Access Controller (EMAC). Doing so would determine controlling and authenticating which devices can connect to the Ethernet network (Hilde [0029] “An access controller 314 determines if the address is associated with known MAC address in memory 310. If the MAC address is not associated with a known MAC address, the MAC address associated with the node may be removed from memory 310”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s
disclosure: Rochberger (US-6614757-B1) discloses a method of performing flow control in a network wherein a node that becomes congested and eliminates additional call requests and other messages that it cannot handle due to the current load.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN D. HO whose telephone number is (571)272-9957. The examiner can normally be reached M- TH 9:00 - 6:00; F 9:00-1:00.
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, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/VIVIAN D HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
