Patent Application 18325284 - TIERED REMEDIATION OF OUTLIER DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 18325284 - TIERED REMEDIATION OF OUTLIER DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM
Title: TIERED REMEDIATION OF OUTLIER DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM REQUESTS
Application Information
- Invention Title: TIERED REMEDIATION OF OUTLIER DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM REQUESTS
- Application Number: 18325284
- Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-05-30T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-05-30T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 726
- National Sub-Class: 022000
- Examiner Employee Number: 91852
- Art Unit: 2435
- Tech Center: 2400
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application filed on 5/30/2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and are examined. 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 . Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 16 and 18 are objected to as being allowable, yet remain dependent upon a rejected claim and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims. 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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 8, 10-11, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasaridis (US 2020/0195669 A1), in view of Shyr (US 2015/0286704 A1). Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Karasaridis teaches: “A method (Karasaridis, ¶ 76 and 78 teaches a processor, memory and medium to execute method steps) comprising: grouping DNS requests into one or more groups based on characteristics of the DNS requests (Karasaridis, Fig. 3 element 320, Fig. 4, ¶ 58-59 and 67-69 teaches clustering DNS records based on a plurality of vectors and normal group requests having a distance less than 0.8 and various ); identifying an outlier request of the DNS requests, wherein the outlier request is one of the DNS requests that is not included in the one or more groups (Karasaridis, ¶ 59 outlier requests are identified and considered single element clusters); and determining a remedial action from tiered remedial actions (Karasaridis, ¶ 66-71 and 74 teaches determining the tier level of remediation based on vector distance corresponding to different groups) for the request, wherein the tiered remedial actions correspond to different distances (Karasaridis, ¶ 66-71 and 74 teaches determining the tier level of remediation based on vector distance corresponding to different groups which is reflective of their distances); and performing the remedial action (Karasaridis, ¶ 66-71 and 74 teaches determining the tier level of remediation based on vector distance corresponding to different groups which is reflective of their distances and taking various remediation actions)”. Karasaridis does not, but in related art, Shyr teaches: “for the outlier based on a distance of the outlier request to the one or more groups (Shyr, Fig. 4, ¶ 80 teaches clustering outliers with their closest cluster)”. Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Karasaridis and Shyr, to modify the DNS clustering and tiered remediation system of Karasaridis to include the method to include outlier data points with their closest cluster as taught in Shyr. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Karasaridis and Shyr teaches: “The method of claim 1 (Karasaridis and Shyr teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the tiered remedial actions include a first remedial action including blocking traffic associated with the outlier request and a second remedial action including investigating the outlier request (Karasaridis, ¶ 74 teaches successively greater complexity remediations including dropping requests and sandboxing)”. Regarding claims 8 and 17, Karasaridis and Shyr teaches: “The method of claim 1 (Karasaridis and Shyr teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein grouping the DNS requests comprises: generating scores for the DNS requests from the characteristics (Karasaridis, ¶ 25-28, 40, 45 and 53 teaches scoring the DNS records based on their reputation and using this for cluster analysis); and grouping the DNS requests into the one or more groups based on the scores (Karasaridis, ¶ 25-28, 40, 45 and 53 teaches scoring the DNS records based on their reputation and using this for cluster analysis)”. Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasaridis in view of Shyr in view of Petla (US 2024/0388514 A1). Regarding claims 6 and 15, Karasaridis and Shyr teaches: “The method of claim 1 (Karasaridis and Shyr teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”. Karasaridis and Shyr does not, but in related art, Petla teaches: “determining a device associated with the outlier request (Petla, ¶ 24, 75 and 84 teaches determining the device type of an outlier data and remediating based on the outlier type); and selecting the tiered remedial actions from device-specific tiered remedial actions based on the device (Petla, ¶ 24, 75 and 84 teaches determining the device type of an outlier data and remediating based on the outlier type)”. Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Karasaridis, Petla, and Shyr, to modify the DNS clustering and tiered remediation system of Karasaridis and Shyr to include the method to detect device type and remediate accordingly. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Conclusion In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (EST). 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, Joseph Hirl can be reached on (571) 272-3685. 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. /STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435