DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is responsive to the Remark filed on 1/22/26.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 20 are amended. Claims 21-22 are added.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-22 is/are presented for examination.
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 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 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, 9-12, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savalle, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2020/0379839 A1 in view of Sas, US 2018/0217912 A1.
As to claim 1, Savalle teaches a method comprising:
indicative of a particular state of the online application (Savalle, page 1, paragraph 2; i.e., [0002] The power of SD-WAN is the ability to provide consistent service level agreement (SLA) for important application traffic transparently across various underlying tunnels of varying transport quality and allow for seamless tunnel selection based on tunnel performance characteristics that can match application SLAs);
providing, by the device, an indication of the particular impairment scenario as a cause of the particular state of the online application (Savalle, page 5, paragraph 50; page 10, paragraph 109; i.e., [0050] improvement is greater than a given threshold. In another embodiment, a similar policy approach may be used to specifically require a
dedicated model for a given tunnel according to its characteristic (between router A and router B), the type of traffic being carried out (e.g., sensitive traffic of type T, etc .), or the
performance of the global or SD-WAN specific model; [0109] To test the performance of the backup tunnels(s) post-reroute, device 308 could measure the tunnel health (e.g., loss, latency, jitter) and the SLAB at a high frequency ( e.g., every 500 ms), to observe any SLA changes. In another embodiment, the edge device 308 may initiate Deep-Packet Inspection (DPI) for the application(s) on the tunnel).
But Savalle failed to teach the claim limitation wherein receiving, at a device, application performance metrics generated by an online application accessible via a network; performing, by the device, testing of the online application by instructing one or more agents in the network to replicate a plurality of impairment scenarios by applying the plurality of impairment scenarios to traffic associated with the online application, each of the plurality of impairment scenarios being representative of a degraded condition; obtaining, by the device, one or more metrics that were produced from the testing of a particular network impairment scenario from among the plurality of network impairment scenarios; determining, by the device, that the one or more metrics have a threshold amount of similarity to the application performance metrics generated by the online application .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Savalle to substitute network traffic from Siakou for traffic of the tunnel from Savalle to incrementing time to live (TTL) value such that latencies of each hop can be measured until
the destination address is reached (Siakou, page 1, paragraph 3).
However, Sas teaches the limitation wherein receiving, at a device, application performance metrics generated by an online application accessible via a network (Sas, page 1, paragraph 19-page 2, paragraph 24; i.e., [0020] creation of a "resources consumption" category stored in a memory and comprising the total consumption of a measured level of use for each resource and each application of the application chain, or [0021] comparison of a measured level of use of a resource available in the measuring repository with the maximum threshold of acceptable performance of the level of use of each resource of an application available); obtaining, by the device, one or more metrics that were produced from the testing of a particular network impairment scenario from among the plurality of network impairment scenarios (Sas, page 1, paragraph 19-page 2, paragraph 24; i.e., [0021] comparison of a measured level of use of a resource available in the measuring repository with the maximum threshold of acceptable performance of the level of use of each resource of an application available; [0022] comparison of a measured level of use of a resource available in the measuring repository with the acceptable consumption interval of the level of use for each resource of an application available in a memory of the repository of use, to create an "application performance degradation" category stored in a memory, when the measured level of use is outside the acceptable consumption interval of the resource); performing, by the device, testing of the online application by instructing one or more agents in the network to replicate a plurality of impairment scenarios by applying the plurality of impairment scenarios to traffic associated with the online application, each of the plurality of impairment scenarios being representative of a degraded condition (Sas, page 1, paragraph 19-page 2, paragraph 24; i.e., [0020] creation of a "resources consumption" category stored in a memory and comprising the total consumption of a measured level of use for each resource and each application of the application chain;; [0022] comparison of a measured level of use of a resource available in the measuring repository with the acceptable consumption interval of the level of use for each resource of an application available in a memory of the repository of use, to create an "application performance degradation" category stored in a memory, when the measured level of use is outside the acceptable consumption interval of the resource); determining, by the device, that the one or more metrics have a threshold amount of similarity to the application performance metrics generated by the online application (Sas, page 1, paragraph 19-page 2, paragraph 24; i.e., [0021] comparison of a measured level of use of a resource available in the measuring repository with the maximum threshold of acceptable performance of the level of use of each resource of an application available; [0022] comparison of a measured level of use of a resource available in the measuring repository with the acceptable consumption interval of the level of use for each resource of an application available in a memory of the repository of use, to create an "application performance degradation" category stored in a memory, when the measured level of use is outside the acceptable consumption interval of the resource).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Savalle to substitute performance degradation from Sas for probes from Savalle to ensure proper performance and proper respect of the quality of service of applications or servers of an application chain (Sas, page 1, paragraph 3).
As to claim 2, Savalle-Sas teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters indicate one or more of: increased loss, increased latency, increased jitter, decreased bandwidth, or background load, imposed on traffic associated with the online application (Savalle, page 10, paragraph 109; i.e., [0109] To test the performance of the backup tunnels(s) post-reroute, device 308 could measure the tunnel health (e.g., loss, latency, jitter) and the SLAB at a high frequency ( e.g., every 500 ms), to observe any SLA changes. In another embodiment, the edge device 308 may initiate Deep-Packet Inspection (DPI) for the application(s) on the tunnel, if system resources permit it).
As to claim 9, Savalle-Sas teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the application performance metrics are associated with poor quality of experience of users of the online application (Savalle, page 6, paragraph 54; i.e., [0054] reporting these telemetry variables to the cloud for prediction may consume too much WAN bandwidth on the network. the quality of service (QoS) policy).
As to claim 10, Savalle-Sas teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein using clustering on the application performance metrics to identify the particular state of the online application (Savalle, page 1, paragraph 2; i.e., [0002] Software-defined wide area networks (SD-WANs) represent the application of software-defined networking (SON) principles to WAN connections. The power of SD-WAN is the ability to provide consistent service level agreement (SLA) for important application traffic transparently across various underlying tunnels of varying transport quality and allow for seamless tunnel selection based on tunnel performance characteristics that can match application SLAs).
Claim(s) 11-12, 19 is/are directed to a device claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1-2, 9. Therefore, claim(s) 11-12, 19 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1-2, 9.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are directed to a non-transitory claim and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1-2. Therefore, claim(s) 20-21 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1-2.
Claim(s) 3, 13 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savalle, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2020/0379839 A1 in view of Sas, US 2018/0217912 A1, and further in view of Virag, U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0313996 A1.
As to claim 3, Savalle-Sas teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Savalle-Sas failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the application performance metrics comprise one or more of: an audio or video concealment time, a bit rate, a video resolution, a frame rate, or a buffer delay.
However, Siakou teaches the limitation wherein the application performance metrics comprise one or more of: an audio or video concealment time, a bit rate, a video resolution, a frame rate, or a buffer delay (Siakou, , page 2, paragraph 16-20; page 7, paragraph 52-53; i.e., [0016] performance tests for determination of the network elements on the path as well as values of metrics indicative of delay (e.g., latency, jitter, and/or packet loss). determine the associated delay for fulfillment of the requests).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Savalle-Sas to substitute network traffic from Siakou for traffic of the tunnel from Savalle-Sas to incrementing time to live (TTL) value such that latencies of each hop can be measured until
the destination address is reached (Siakou, page 1, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 13 & 22 is/are directed to a device claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 3. Therefore, claim(s) 13 & 22 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 3.
Claim(s) 6-8, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savalle, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2020/0379839 A1 in view of Sas, US 2018/0217912 A1, and further in view of Virag, U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0313996 A1.
As to claim 6, Savalle-Sas teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Savalle-Sas failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the application performance metrics are associated with a location type, and wherein the testing of the online application replicates traffic for the online application from that location type.
However, Virag teaches the limitation wherein the application performance metrics are associated with a location type, and wherein the testing of the online application replicates traffic for the online application from that location type (Virag, page 8, paragraph 73; page 9, paragraph 77-78; page 11, paragraph 81; i.e., [0073] to mirror or duplicate entire packet flows (which correspond to the latency-sensitive application; [0077] mirror the first P data packets of each packet flow associated with the latency-sensitive application, data packets of a particular packet flow of the latency-sensitive application; [0078] In another non-limiting embodiment of the present disclosure, the second LLD agent 228 may configure the router 229 to mirror a predefined number or amount of data bytes of each packet flow associated with the latency sensitive application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Savalle-Sas to substitute low latency and non-low latency traffic from Virag for traffic of the tunnel from Savalle-Sas to enable efficient provisioning of packet classifiers for bifurcation of traffic into low-latency traffic and non-low-latency traffic (Virag, page 1, paragraph 8).
As to claim 7, Savalle-Sas teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Savalle-Sas failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the application performance metrics are associated with a wide area network access technology, and wherein the testing of the online application replicates traffic for the online application sent via that wide area network access technology.
However, Virag teaches the limitation wherein the application performance metrics are associated with a wide area network access technology, and wherein the testing of the online application replicates traffic for the online application sent via that wide area network access technology (Virag, page 8, paragraph 73; page 9, paragraph 77-78; page 11, paragraph 81; i.e., [0073] to mirror or duplicate entire packet flows (which correspond to the latency-sensitive application, and which pass through the identified one or more network ports); [0077] mirror the first P data packets of each packet flow associated with the latency-sensitive application, where P is an integer greater than or equal to one. Whenever the second LLD agent 228 receives first P data packets of a particular packet flow of the latency-sensitive application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Savalle-Sas to substitute low latency and non-low latency traffic from Virag for traffic of the tunnel from Savalle-Sas to enable efficient provisioning of packet classifiers for bifurcation of traffic into low-latency traffic and non-low-latency traffic (Virag, page 1, paragraph 8).
As to claim 8, Savalle-Sas teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Savalle-Sas failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the application performance metrics are associated with an Internet access strategy, and wherein the testing of the online application replicates traffic for the online application sent via using that Internet access strategy.
However, Virag teaches the limitation wherein the application performance metrics are associated with an Internet access strategy, and wherein the testing of the online application replicates traffic for the online application sent via using that Internet access strategy (Virag, page 8, paragraph 73; page 9, paragraph 77-78; page 11, paragraph 81; i.e., [0073] to mirror or duplicate entire packet flows (which correspond to the latency-sensitive application; [0077] mirror the first P data packets of each packet flow associated with the latency-sensitive application, data packets of a particular packet flow of the latency-sensitive application; [0078] In another non-limiting embodiment of the present disclosure, the second LLD agent 228 may configure the router 229 to mirror a predefined number or amount of data bytes of each packet flow associated with the latency sensitive application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Savalle-Sas to substitute low latency and non-low latency traffic from Virag for traffic of the tunnel from Savalle-Sas to enable efficient provisioning of packet classifiers for bifurcation of traffic into low-latency traffic and non-low-latency traffic (Virag, page 1, paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are directed to a device claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 6-8. Therefore, claim(s) 16-18 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 6-8.
Claim(s) 5 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savalle, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2020/0379839 A1 in view of Sas, US 2018/0217912 A1, and further in view of Shah, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2020/0167604 A1.
As to claim 5, Savalle-Sas teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Savalle-Sas failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the one or more agents automate user actions within the online application.
However, Shah teaches the limitation wherein the one or more agents automate user actions within the online application (Shah, page 1, paragraph 2; i.e., [0002] an automated virtual agent which guides the interaction based on a set of scripts and a knowledgebase related to the topic of the contact. When implementing these conversational systems, the automated system must first be trained using intent data to correctly respond with regard to the context of the user's statement or question).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Savalle-Sas to substitute virtual agent from Shah for the controller from Savalle-Sas to using intent data to correctly respond with regard to the context of the user's statement or question (Shah, page 1, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are directed to a system claim and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim(s) 15 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Garnepudi, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20150088697 A1 discloses implementing the test result.
Yadav, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20170344467 A1 discloses software testing, metric function.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THUONG NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416