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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered, but cannot be held as persuasive. On page 8, Applicant begins by noting the newly amended claim language. Continuing to page 9, Applicant summarizes the teachings of Bergstrom, and argues that Bergstrom fails to show the “analyzing traffic . . . with respect to the motif to determine that the traffic is exhibiting the pattern of change of the network path metric”, “predicting, based on the traffic . . . ”, and the “indicative of a pattern of change. . .” claim language. Applicant argues that instead Bergstrom “merely describes forecasting congestion levels at ASN peering points using a deep learning engine . . .” and “not application-specific degradation based on a user-labeled motif” as Bergstrom does not “analyze traffic with respect to a motif that has been identified through similarity-based groupings of timeseries segments and labeled by a user as being associated with degraded application experience for a particular online application.” Continuing on page 10, Applicant argues Mermoud and Carisimo “fail to cure the deficiencies of Bergstrom”.
In response, the Examiner notes that Bergstrom was not relied upon for showing all of the above argued limitations. For example, “a motif that has been identified through similarity-based groupings of timeseries segments and labeled by a user” corresponds more closely to limitations previously addressed via citations to Carisimo in view of Mermoud. Carisimo was previously cited for grouping motifs by their similarities (Carisimo, pg. 1 lines 22-27, pg. 2 lines 20-31, pg. 4 lines 27-37, with more details provided, e.g., on page 4 of the 1/9/2026 Non-Final rejection) shows providing data to a user for display and reception of labels (similar to the above argued “similarity based grouping”), and Mermoud was previously cited as showing reception of labels from users identifying motifs associated with degraded application experiences (e.g., Mermoud, [52,59,75-76,81], with more details provided on pages 4 - 5 of the 1/9/2026 Non-Final rejection).
The amended claim language has however resulted in new grounds of rejection made after further search and consideration. The amendments have raised issues regarding Written Description of support and clarity, resulting in the presently presented rejections made under 35 USC 112.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter for the reasons given below in the 35 USC 112 written description rejection. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 16, and 18 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the above noted claim limitation in the application as filed.
Regarding claim 1, said claim has been amended to recite, on line 4, segmenting a timeseries of telemetry data “representing a network path metric overtime”. Applicant’s specification lacks written description support for this language. Page 14, lines 1 – 3 recites language directed to application quality of service and how QoS measurements can vary “over time”, but this is not the same thing as what is claimed in amended lines 1 – 4 of claim 1. Additionally, page 14 discusses consideration of data “over time”, rather than “overtime” as claimed. Further regarding claim 1, said claim has been amended on lines 19 – 22 to reference a “pattern of change of the network path metric”. Identifying a “pattern” is discussed in the specification in, e.g., lines 4 – 9 of page 18, but in context of identification of a “motif” (where “motif” and “pattern” are treated as synonyms in the specification, e.g., page 18 line 6). However, identification of a ”pattern” is not the same as what is claimed, and the claimed and disclosed “motif” is distinct from the claimed and disclosed “network path metric”. On page 3, claim 1 has been amened to recite “prior to the future time, selecting, based on the label, a network path over which to temporarily route the traffic” on lines 1 – 2. The Examiner notes that page 16, lines 17 – 20 of Applicant’s specification recites: “In general routing configuration changes are also referred to herein as routing ‘patches,’ which are typically temporary in nature (e.g., active for a specified period of time) and may also be application-specific (e.g., for traffic of one or more specified applications).”
And page 25 lines 6 – 12 recites: “In one embodiment, motif tagger 506 may assign an importance value to a motif,
based on the duration of time between consecutive occurrences of the motif. The
duration between reoccurrence of the motifs can be used to identify motifs that recur over large time-ranges repetitively as opposed to those which only recur for a certain limited 10 time duration. Such 'local' motifs, which could be a result of some temporary influence on the network path, are much less important than motifs which show up regularly over a long-history and indicate a more permanent problem on the path.”
Thus the specification discloses temporary routing patches as well as tagged motifs that have a temporary influence. However, that temporary routing patches exist and that motifs can occur temporarily is not the same thing as “prior to the future time, selecting, based on the label, a network path over which to temporarily route the traffic”. Regarding claim 3, said claim has been amended to recite on line 2 “determine, by the device, an amount of time between the subset of segments.” While page 25, lines 6 – 17 discusses, e.g., acting “based on the duration of time between consecutive occurrences of the motif” and identification of a “time delta between reoccurrence of different motifs”, this is not the same thing as the “determine, by the device, an amount of time between the subset of segments” now recited in claim 3, as the “subset of segments” claimed are not the same thing as the claimed motifs. Note a motif is claimed as being determined “based on the grouping” of a ”subset of segments” rather than being a “subset of segments” itself (and thus a motif is itself not such a subset). Given the claim language utilized by Applicant in claim 1 and the description provided in the accompanying specification, a “motif” is interpreted as, e.g., a “pattern” rather than a “subset of segments”. Regarding claim 6, said claim suffers from issues similar to that of claim 3. Claim 6 has been amended to further limit “grouping the subset of segments” of claim 1, including “computing distances between segments in the subset of segments”. Lines 3 – 9 on page 27 of the specification recite to: “group the subset into the motif in part by computing distances between portions of the timeseries in the subset”.However, “portions of the timeseries in the subset” is not the same thing as “subset” itself. In order for the amended language in claim 6 to be supported, these “portions of the timeseries in the subset” would have to be treated as synonymous with the “subset” itself, but neither the antecedent basis provided by claim 1 nor the specification treat these two expressions as synonyms, and their plain English language meaning shows that they express distinct things.
Regarding claims 2, 4 – 5, and 8 – 10, said claims depend on claim 1 and fail to clarify the issues noted above. Regarding claims 11 and 20, said claims recite language analogous to that in claim 1, and thus suffer from issues corresponding to those addressed above.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, said claims recite language analogous to those in claims 3 and 6, and thus suffer from issues corresponding to those addressed above.
Regarding claims 12, 14 – 15, 18, and 19, said claims depend on claim 11 and fail to clarify the issues noted above. Regarding claim 21, said newly presented claim recites “overlaying the subset of segments onto one another” and determination of a “same pattern of change of the network path metric”.
Regarding the “overlaying the subset of segments onto one another” language, there is no disclosure of “overlaying” in the specification, much less overlaying a subset of segments onto one another. Regarding the determination of a “same pattern of change of the network path metric”, this language suffers from the same issues identified when discussing similar language in claim 1. Identifying a “pattern” is discussed in the specification in, e.g., lines 4 – 9 of page 18, but in context of identification of a “motif” (where “motif” and “pattern” are treated as synonyms in the specification). However, identification of a ”pattern” is not the same as what is claimed, and the claimed and disclosed “motif” is distinct from the claimed and disclosed “network path metric”.
Regarding claim 22, said newly presented claim recites a motif representing segments “including a same shape over a duration of time” and a “pattern of change of the network path metric”. Regarding the “including a same shape over a duration of time” language, the Examiner notes page 21 lines 18 – 26 discusses a “motif cluster extractor” to perform “clustering of snippets” to group those “which possess the same shape”, and page 21 continues on line 28 – page 22 line 10 to discuss this “motif cluster extractor” which may “enforce the ‘shape’ or characteristic’ of a motif”. However, a “same shape over a duration of time” is never discussed, much less “including a same shape over a duration of time with respect to the pattern of change of the network path metric.”
Regarding the determination of a “pattern of change of the network path metric”, this language suffers from the same issues identified when discussing similar language in claim 1. Identifying a “pattern” is discussed in the specification in, e.g., lines 4 – 9 of page 18, but in context of identification of a “motif” (where “motif” and “pattern” are treated as synonyms in the specification). However, identification of a ”pattern” is not the same as what is claimed, and the claimed and disclosed “motif” is distinct from the claimed and disclosed “network path metric”.
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 1 – 6, 8 – 16, and 18 – 22 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. Regarding claim 1, said claim has been amended to recite on line 4 “telemetry data representing a network path metric overtime”. The intended scope of this language is unclear and indefinite given the use of the term “overtime”. The Examiner notes that the use of “overtime” may correspond to a typographical error (where “over time” was intended), but regardless of whether “overtime” or “over time” was intended, clarity issues would be present. It is unclear what the addition of “overtime” is intended to convey given the standard definition of “overtime”, and the scope of said recitation is unclear and indefinite given the context of claim 1 as a whole. For example, claim 1 further recites:
on lines 11 – 12, “a pattern of change of the network path metric”,
on lines 19 – 20, “the pattern of change of the network path metric”, and
on lines 21 – 22, “the pattern of change of the network path metric”.
It is unclear of these further references to “the network path metric” are intended to further reference the above noted “network path metric” tied to the recitation of “network path metric overtime”, or whether these additional recitations are unrelated to the recitation in line 4.
Claim 1 additionally has been amended to recite:
on lines 10 – 11, “a motif that is indicative of a pattern of change”,
on lines 19 – 20, “the pattern of change of the network path metric”, and
on lines 21 – 22, “the pattern of change of the network path metric”.
The Examiner notes that “motif” is utilized by Applicant in their specification as being synonymous with “pattern”, e.g., page 18 line 6 discussing “motifs/patterns”. Thus lines 10 - 11 claims what amounts to a “pattern that is indicative to a pattern of change”. However, claims 19 – 20 and 21 – 22, as noted above, recite that the “network path metric” also has a “pattern of change”. The recitations in lines 19 - 20 and 20 – 21 thus raise the issues as to whether the “metric” is synonymous with a “pattern of change of the network path metric”, and thus whether those lines effectively recite determining “that the traffic is exhibiting the [motif]” or whether some other interpretation is desired. The use of the above language in the claims and the disclosure in the specification results in the intended scope of the claimed “motif”, “network path metric”, and “pattern of change” as being unclear and indefinite. The terms appear to share some degree of overlap in scope, but precisely to what degree they overlap and what the resultant intended scope is of each term in the pending claims has been rendered unclear an indefinite by the resultant amendments.
Regarding claim 2, said claim further specifies that the “network path metric” discussed above comprises at least one of “packet loss, jitter, delay, or throughput”. This language exacerbates the issues noted above in claim 1, given the context in which “network path metric” is utilized in claim 1. For example, were “network path metric” to comprise “throughput”, claims 1 and 2 are, in one embodiment, claiming a “motif (pattern) that is indicative of a pattern of change of throughput”. However, “throughput” does not necessarily have a “pattern of change” (nor does “packet loss”, “jitter” or “delay”). Each of these four representatives of a “network path metric” can be, e.g., absent altogether (e.g., zero packet loss), or also constant (consistent jitter, delay, or throughput). Thus there would be no pattern of change for the steps noted in claim 1 to determine or for the traffic to exhibit. However, claim 1 is drafted in a way that requires such a pattern to be presented and represented in the claimed telemetry data, which results in unclear and indefinite claim language.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, said claims recite language analogous to that in claim 1, and thus suffer from issues corresponding to those addressed above.
Regarding claim 12, said claim recites language analogous to that in claim 2, and thus suffers from issues corresponding to those addressed above.
Regarding claims 3 – 5, 6 – 10, 13 – 13 and 18, 19, and 21 - 22, said claims depend on one of the claims addressed above, and inherit the issues of their respective parent claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights