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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/127,907 filed on 29 March 2023. The response filed 14 October 2025 amends claims 1, 11, and 20, and presents arguments is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20
On pages 7-9 of the response filed 14 October 2025, Applicant addresses the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection made on the 14 July 2025 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant’s arguments, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered.
On pages 7-9, Applicant argues that Kumar fails to teach or suggest “generating, by the device, signatures for the set of probing motifs, wherein each signature of the signatures relates a given probing strategy with a measure of performance of a classifier to detect each probing motif included in the set of probing motifs if path probing were to be conducted in accordance with the given probing strategy.” Examiner respectfully agrees and finds this argument persuasive. Kumar fails to explicitly teach the amended limitation. Therefore, Examiner finds this argument persuasive.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-19
On pages 7-11 of the response filed 14 October 2025, Applicant addresses the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections made on the 14 July 2025 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant submits that these claims are allowable at least as depending from an allowable independent claim, and further in view of the amendments to the independent claims, and the comments provided above. As per the comments above, Examiner found the arguments persuasive. With regards to allowability, Examiner has conducted a search and applied new art. Thus, a new rejection is established against the independent 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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2020/0296023 A1 to Kumar et al and in view of US PGPUB 2025/0274370 A1 to Diot et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Kumar discloses a method comprising: obtaining, by a device, a set of probing motifs, wherein each probing motif groups similar patterns of path probing results for one or more path metrics in a network (0034 and 0036-0037 provides for obtaining, by SD-WAN appliance 18, a set of pattern inconsistencies, wherein each pattern inconsistency of spiking metrics in a network); generating, by the device, signatures for the set of probing motifs (0034 and 0036-0037 provides for generating, by the SD-WAN appliance 18, predictions for the pattern inconsistencies, wherein each predicting relates to an adjustment in probing frequency to detect QoE characteristics and a probing profile in accordance with the probing frequency); selecting, by the device and based on the signatures for the set of probing motifs, a particular probing strategy to use in the network (0034 and 0036-0037 provides for selecting, by the SD-WAN appliance 18 and based on the predictions for the pattern inconsistencies, an updating probing profile); and causing, by the device, one or more probing agents in the network to conduct path probing in accordance with the particular probing strategy (0034 and 0036-0037 provides for causing, by the SD-WAN appliance 18, probing packets in the network to conduct link probing in accordance with the updated probing profile). Kumar doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein each signature of the signatures relates a given probing strategy with a measure of performance of a classifier to detect each probing motif included in the set of probing motifs if path probing were to be conducted in accordance with the given probing strategy. Diot, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses wherein each signature of the signatures relates a given probing strategy with a measure of performance of a classifier to detect each probing motif included in the set of probing motifs if path probing were to be conducted in accordance with the given probing strategy (0067 provide for wherein each probing strategy is an output of where to monitor and at what sampling rate/a given probing strategy based on a measure of performance/a target statistical accuracy for a metric input). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Diot for performing an optimal probing strategy. The optimal probing strategy of Diot, when implemented with the real-time application-driven synthetic probing of the Kumar system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to optimizing probing strategy in order to control the accuracy of performance estimation. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the optimal probing strategy of Diot with the real-time application-driven synthetic probing of the Kumar system for the desirable purpose of optimizing the probing strategy in a network.
Regarding Claim 2, the Kumar/Diot system discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein the one or more path metrics comprise at least one of: delay, loss, or jitter (Kumar, 0033 provides for path delay).
Regarding Claim 4, the Kumar/Diot system discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein the particular probing strategy comprises sending path probes at multiple probing frequencies (Kumar, 0034-0036 provides for probing frequencies).
Regarding Claim 5, the Kumar/Diot system discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein the device selects the particular probing strategy based on a defined policy that specifies a threshold for the measure of performance and a threshold probing frequency (Kumar, 0031 and 0034-0036 provides for a rate limiter determination and probing frequency based on an initial probing profile).
Regarding Claim 7, the Kumar/Diot system discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein each of the set of probing motifs is associated with a corresponding impact to a quality of experience metric for a particular online application (Kumar, 0033 provides for quality of experience metrics).
Regarding Claim 8, the Kumar/Diot system discloses the method as in claim 7, further comprising: detecting, by the device, degradation to the quality of experience metric for the particular online application by using the classifier to detect a set of probing motifs from probing results captured by the one or more probing agents (Kumar, 0031 and 0033-0037 provides for quality of experience metrics and probing frequency).
Regarding Claim 10, the Kumar/Diot system discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein the one or more probing agents are executed by one or more edge routers in the network (Kumar, FIG. 1 provides for router 8).
Regarding Claim 11, similar rejection where the method of claim 1 teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, similar rejection where the method of claim 2 teaches the apparatus of claim 12.
Regarding Claim 14, similar rejection where the method of claim 4 teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, similar rejection where the method of claim 5 teaches the apparatus of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17, similar rejection where the method of claim 7 teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, similar rejection where the method of claim 8 teaches the apparatus of claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, similar rejection where the method of claim 1 teaches the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 20.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kumar/Diot system as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2021/0211347 A1 to Vasseur et al.
Regarding Claim 3, the Kumar/Diot system discloses the method as in claim 1. The Kumar/Diot system doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the measure of performance comprises a recall or precision metric. Vasseur, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses wherein the measure of performance comprises a recall or precision metric (0037 provides for the concepts of recall and precision). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Vasseur for SD-WAN path experience telemetry. The path experience measurements of Vasseur, when implemented with the real-time application-driven synthetic probing of the Kumar/Diot system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to consider negatives and positives in order to quantify the sensitivity of the model. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the path experience measurements of Vasseur with the real-time application-driven synthetic probing of the Kumar/Diot system for the desirable purpose of predicting path experience.
Regarding Claim 13, similar rejection where the method of claim 3 teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kumar/Diot system as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2020/0382387 A1 to Pasupathy et al.
Regarding Claim 6, the Kumar/Diot system r discloses the method as in claim 5. The Kumar/Diot system doesn’t explicitly disclose receiving, at the device, the defined policy from a user interface. Pasupathy, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses receiving, at the device, the defined policy from a user interface (0060 provides for SD-WAN receiving a user configured intent model). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Pasupathy for obtaining configurations from a user. The user configurations of Pasupathy, when implemented with the real-time application-driven synthetic probing of the Kumar/Diot system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to measure recommended metrics in order to transmit probes in an optimal fashion. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the user configurations of Pasupathy with the real-time application-driven synthetic probing of the Kumar/Diot system for the desirable purpose of optimizing path probing.
Regarding Claim 16, similar rejection where the method of claim 6 teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar/Diot system as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2015/0341812 A1 to Dion et al.
Regarding Claim 9, the Kumar/Diot system discloses the method as in claim 1. The Kumar/Diot system doesn’t explicitly disclose sending a finite state machine that encodes the particular probing strategy to the one or more probing agents. Dion, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses sending a finite state machine that encodes the particular probing strategy to the one or more probing agents (0124 provides for filtering network traffic via quality probes comprising finite state machines). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Dion for Finite State Machines. The FSMs of Dion, when implemented with the real-time application-driven synthetic probing of the Kumar/Diot system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to analyze network traffic in order to quantify the network. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the FSMs of Dion with the real-time application-driven synthetic probing of the Kumar/Diot system for the desirable purpose of monitoring network connections.
Regarding Claim 19, similar rejection where the method of claim 9 teaches the apparatus of claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2021/0399964 A1 to Gupta et al discloses performing probing based on a predicted probe profile.
US PGPUB 2015/0188780 A1 to Spieser discloses SAA probe definitions such as packet size, number of packets, inter packet delay, frequency of probe execution or iteration, etc.
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 SCHQUITA GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459