DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Magnusson et al., US 20180295019 A1 (hereafter referred to as Magnusson) in view of Sankaran, US 20100036911 A1 (hereafter referred to as Sankaran)
Claim 1, Magnusson teaches a method for network management automation (p. 76, “the approach permits an automatic deployment of configuration profiles. In particular, configuration parameters pertaining to new features not yet available within the communication network 100 can be automatically deployed. “) comprising:
defining one or more input devices (p. 63, “one or more of the network elements 20 may be configured as routers or switches having one or more ingress ports 28 and one or more egress ports 30. Each ingress port 28 is configured to receive one or more ingress packet flows, and each egress port 30 is configured to transmit one or more egress packet flows.” The network topology providing input devices.) ;
identifying one or more network intent (NI) seeds (p. 61, “The network management component 10 of FIG. 1 is adapted to configure the network elements 20 on the basis of configuration profiles and/or configuration profile groups.” And p. 67, “… providing the network elements 20 in the communication network 100 (see FIG. 1) with conditional configuration profiles for applying configuration parameter settings.” Network element with matching the conditions of configuration profile is a seed.);
generating member NI based on the one or more NI seeds and based on the defined one or more input devices (p. 67, “The same set of configuration profiles (that may be bundled in one or more configuration profile groups) can be downloaded to and installed on a larger set of network elements 20.”);
triggering a network intent cluster to run for the generated member NI (p. 67, “The method embodiments generally target at providing the network elements 20 in the communication network 100 (see FIG. 1) with conditional configuration profiles for applying configuration parameter settings. The scope of an individual configuration profile is the entire network element configuration and is in particular not limited to any standardized configuration parameter subsets.”);
Magnusson does not specifically teach classifying the one or more input devices based at least in part on responses from the one or more input devices to one or more instances of a network command when subject to network commands; and grouping the one or more input devices by eigen-value based on the one or more instances of the network commands. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sankaran teaches classifying the one or more input devices based at least in part on responses from the one or more input devices to one or more instances of a network command when subject to network commands (p. 15, “Upon evaluation of the set of conditions, the network device can determine if the conditions are met or not met. If the conditions are met, the network device can be considered within the scope of the defined conditions. Otherwise, the network device is considered outside the scope of the defined conditions. In a particular example embodiment described in more detail below, the NMS 105 can manage the configuration of each of the network devices within a defined scope of a particular network.”); and
grouping the one or more input devices by eigen-value based on the one or more instances of the network commands (p. 18, “… in the first multicast message the NMS 105 can send to the network devices a set of conditions that each network device can evaluate. This set of conditions (also called a scope challenge) can be deterministically resolved to produce a result. The result can be used to determine if the particular network device is within (or outside) the scope of the configuration change.” And p. 15, “The NMS 105 is responsible for pushing configuration changes to the various network devices in the network. Each network device 110, 120, or 130 can be a computer, client device, server, router, gateway, switch, or the like.” “Typically, each network device 110, 120, or 130 has an associated configuration defined by the various settings, parameters, modes, states, or conditions existing within the device at a particular time.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Magnusson by incorporating classifying input devices and grouping input devices from Sankaran to improve availability by reducing misconfigurations across devices (Sankaran, p. 12).
Claim 3, Magnusson-Sankaran teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the generating the member NI is based on the grouping (Magnusson, p. 68, “Each configuration profile may belong to a configuration profile group optionally including one or more further configuration profiles. The configuration profiles within one configuration profile group will typically be mutually exclusive relative to each other (e.g., in terms of targeting at different network element types or different network element software versions).”).
Claim 4, Magnusson-Sankaran teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting the NI seed (Magnusson, p. 108, “When a configuration profile group becomes enabled in the normative mode, the profile engine 34 of the network element 20 will evaluate the one or more activation conditions of each configuration profile for each configuration object instance of the controlling configuration object type and mark the configuration profile as active or inactive per instance (see data structure 510 in FIG. 5).”); and
testing the selected NI seed against a live network (Magnusson, p. 117, “An expert operator with knowledge and authority to perform the intended configuration parameter changes may thus create, test and digitally sign the configuration profile group, thereby preventing any unauthorized personal to alter the configuration profile group.”), wherein the generating the member NI occurs only when the NI seed passes the testing (Magnusson, p. 117, “… may thus create, test and digitally sign the configuration profile group..”).
Claim 5, Magnusson-Sankaran teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the defining the input devices further comprises identifying the one or more input devices based on Site, Device Group, Device (Magnusson, p. 79, “a configuration profile group may contain two versions of the same configuration profile, where one version is targeting at an instance of one type of network element 20 and the other version is targeting at an instance of another network element type.”), Path, or by Map.
Claim 6, Magnusson-Sankaran teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the defining comprises uploading a file with device (Magnusson, attaching the credential, p. 118, “When such a configuration profile is applied, it will be the permissions of the signing author of the configuration profile group that are used to grant access to the parameters, not the access rights of the ordinary operator.”).
Claim 7, Magnusson-Sankaran teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the NI seed comprises one or more devices with NI to be replicated (Magnusson, p. 24, “The configuration profiles in the configuration profile group may relate to at least one of different network element types and different network element software versions. For example, the configuration profiles in the configuration profile group may relate to collaborating network elements of different types.”).
Claim 8, Magnusson-Sankaran teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the member NI comprises one or more devices with the NI seed (Magnusson, p. 67, “The same set of configuration profiles (that may be bundled in one or more configuration profile groups) can be downloaded to and installed on a larger set of network elements 20.”), wherein the one or more devices are from the defined one or more input devices (Magnusson, p. 63, “one or more of the network elements 20 may be configured as routers or switches having one or more ingress ports 28 and one or more egress ports 30. Each ingress port 28 is configured to receive one or more ingress packet flows, and each egress port 30 is configured to transmit one or more egress packet flows.” The network topology providing input devices.).
Claim 9, Magnusson-Sankaran teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the generating member NI is: by map, by site, by device group (Magnusson, p. 68, “The configuration profiles within one configuration profile group will typically be mutually exclusive relative to each other (e.g., in terms of targeting at different network element types or different network element software versions).”), by path, by device, or by neighbor.
Claim 10, Magnusson-Sankaran teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the triggering is from an external source (Magnusson, p. 72, “Alternatively, step 208 may conditionally be performed upon receipt of an enablement command for an individual configuration profile or configuration profile group.” “The enablement command may be sent by the network management component 10 independently of step 204.”).
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 PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights