BitLaw

Section 101 Examples
Example 40: Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data

This is an example provided by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for analyzing Section 101 patent subject matter eligibility issues. In particular, this example was created to help explain the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). The original PDF document is found here.

This example should be viewed in light of the introduction that was provided with it.

Index to USPTO's Section 101 Examples
Previous: Example 39 | Next: Example 41

Example 40: Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data

Background

Network visibility tools enable close monitoring of computer network traffic, applications, performance, and resources. The data acquired through these network visibility tools is extremely useful in optimizing network performance, resolving network issues, and improving network security. One industry standard network visibility protocol is NetFlow. In a typical setup, a NetFlow exporter generates and exports network traffic statistics (in the form of NetFlow records) to at least one NetFlow collector that analyzes the statistics. Because NetFlow records are very large, the continual generation and export of NetFlow records in such a setup substantially increases the traffic volume on the network, which hinders network performance. Moreover, continual analysis of the network is not always necessary when the network is performing under normal conditions.

Applicant’s invention addresses this issue by varying the amount of network data collected based on monitored events in the network. That is, the system will only collect NetFlow protocol data and export a NetFlow record when abnormal network conditions are detected. In practice, during normal network conditions, a network appliance collects network data relating to network traffic passing through the network appliance. This network data, for example, could include network delay, packet loss, or jitter. Periodically, the network data is compared to a predefined quality threshold. If this network data is greater than the predefined quality threshold, an abnormal condition is detected. When an abnormal condition is present, the system begins collecting NetFlow protocol data, which can later be used for analyzing the abnormal condition. During this time, the network appliance continues to monitor the network conditions (i.e., comparing collected network data to the predetermined quality threshold) and when the abnormal condition no longer exists, NetFlow protocol data is no longer collected.

Claim 1:

A method for adaptive monitoring of traffic data through a network appliance connected between computing devices in a network, the method comprising:
• collecting, by the network appliance, traffic data relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, the traffic data comprising at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter;
• comparing, by the network appliance, at least one of the collected traffic data to a predefined threshold; and
• collecting additional traffic data relating to the network traffic when the collected traffic data is greater than the predefined threshold, the additional traffic data comprising Netflow protocol data.
Step Analysis
1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim recites the limitation of comparing at least one of the collected traffic data to a predefined threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the network appliance,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the network appliance” language, the claim encompasses a user simply comparing the collected packet loss data to a predetermined acceptable quality percentage in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? Yes. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? N/A.

Claim 2:

A method for monitoring of traffic data through a network appliance connected between computing devices in a network, the method comprising:
• collecting, by the network appliance, traffic data relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, the traffic data comprising at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter; and
• comparing, by the network appliance, at least one of the collected traffic data to a predefined threshold.
Step Analysis
1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim recites the limitation of comparing at least one of the collected traffic data to a predefined threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the network appliance,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the network appliance” language, the claim encompasses a user simply comparing the collected packet loss data to a predetermined acceptable quality percentage in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites two additional elements: collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and that a generic network appliance performs the comparing step. The collecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering network traffic data for use in the comparison step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The network appliance that performs the comparison step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the comparison step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the network appliance). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the network appliance). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the collecting step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off- the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well- understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.