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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 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, 12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2015/0237511) and in view of Brooks (US 2017/0315897) and in view of Kuchibhotla (US 2009/0106605).
Re claim 1, Jackson discloses a computer-implemented method for checking the health of a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) system, the method comprising:
receiving information identifying one or more system checks to be executed on one or more components of a DHCP system ([0026], performs a network diagnostic test identifying the location of the delay), wherein the one or more system checks include at least one of a gateway system check, a domain name server (DNS) system check ([0027], in response to an indication of delay. The network diagnostic test determines a status of a DHCP address for local computing device 202 (e.g., whether it was received), a DNS query sent by the device), a domain search list system check, or a subnet mask system check;
executing the one or more systems checks, wherein each system check of the one or more system checks performs a comparison of an operating condition of the DHCP system to a target condition ([0027]-[0028], diagnostic test determines where the location of the delay. Network delay conditions are occurred).
While Jackson discloses diagnostic tests determine where there is a network delay, Jackson does not disclose, However Brooks discloses one or more system checks stored in a system check repository ([0035]-[0037], benchmark of system metrics are stored in any suitable location, e.g., data storage device to generate an operating policy);
receiving, from the system check repository, configuration parameters associated with each of the one or more system checks ([0030], the performance monitoring module may retrieve the system metric from the stored benchmark belonging to the identified server component);
one or more system checks performs a comparison, based on stored policy information included in a policy information repository ([0033]-[0037], stored benchmark generates an operating policy that is stored for other servers in order to determine the health of other servers and if they are in nominal operation by detecting a threshold variance).
Jackson and Brooks are analogous art because they both disclose a health check system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson’s health monitoring with Brook’s health operating policies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by using stored policies to determine the health utilizing threshold variances.
While Brooks discloses in [0027]-[0035], utilizing benchmark of system metrics to determine the health of the system, Jackson and Brooks does not disclose, however Kuchibhotla discloses
one or more system checks stored in a system check repository ([0055], health monitor module performs one or more health checks in a system that maybe stored in a check repository.);
retrieving, from each of the one or more system checks, a unique identifier included in the system check that identifies one or more code modules for execution to perform the system check ([0055], health monitor module performs one or more health checks in a system that maybe stored in a check repository. The information stored in check repository includes information identifying a health check and pieces of code to be executed by a processor to carry out the functions of the health check. In other words, since there is information stored in the check repository that identifies the health check and pieces of code to be executed, it is obvious that the information stored for the particular health check is a unique identifier.);
receiving, from the system check repository, configuration parameters associated with each of the one or more system checks wherein the configuration parameters associated with a system check are identified using the unique identifier included in the associated system check ([0088], health check uses information such as name for the particular health check executed. It also comprises other information related to the other parameters associated with the particular health check.);
executing the one or more system checks, wherein each system check of the one or more system checks performs a comparison, based on a stored policy information that includes the unique identifier ([0020], executing the health check comprises determining a set of rules configured for the system, specifying if one or more conditions are satisfied (comparing if the rules were satisfied);
effecting creation of a ticket for recording a result of the comparison, wherein
the ticket includes the unique identifiers associated with each of the one or more system checks ([0100] a report (ticket) is generated based on the information determined or executed by the health check. The report comprises of the name for the particular health check executed, other parameters associated with the particular health check, and other pertinent health check information.) Jackson, Brooks and Kuchibhotla are analogous art because they disclose a health check system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson and Brooks’s health monitoring with Kuchibhotla’s health monitoring to improve diagnostics of conditions detected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by using a health monitor infrastructure for diagnosing and/or gathering information related to the system.
Re claims 2, 4-5. Claim 1, from which claims 2, 4-5 are dependent upon, recites four system check condition, gateway system check, a domain name server (DNS) system check, a domain search list check, or a subnet mask system check. If the prior art meets the limitation of a domain name server (DNS) system check, then the prior art satisfies the claim language. Claims 2, 4-5 are directed to further features of gateway system, check, a domain search list check, or a subnet mask system check which is not positively required by the claim language of 1 if the domain name server (DNS) system check condition is met.
Re claims 12 and 18, they are similar to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons above.
Re claim 17, Jackson discloses a timestamp indicating a time at which a system check of the one or more system checks was executed ([0027], network time protocol). One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Jackson and Brook for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Kuchibhotla discloses a system check of the one or more system checks to which the ticket applies ([0100], a report may be generated upon the execution of the health check. The report comprise various pieces of information, one being the status of the health check.);
one or more flags identifying one or more system checks where the operating condition of the DHCP system did not meet the target condition ([0100], a report may be generated upon the execution of the health check. The report comprise various pieces of information, one being the status of the health check, one or more error conditions detected in the system as a result of the health check.).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson and in view of Brooks and in view of Kuchibhotla and in view of Hentunen (US 2016/0150004, hereinafter Hentunen).
Re claim 3, Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Hentunen discloses wherein the DNS system check comprises: comparing a DNS servers list provided by a DHCP server to an approved DNS server list to ensure that all servers listed on the DNS servers list provided by a DHCP server are from the approved DNS server list ([0134], evaluating integrity of a DNS server includes the operation of verifying if the acquired IP address of the DNS server device is included in a list of IP address of trusted DNS server devices). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Hentunen are analogous art because they all disclose a system check.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks and Kuchibhotla’s system check with Hentunen’s DNS server check verifying if the acquired IP address of the DNS server device is included in a list of trusted DNS server devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to know if the list of IP address includes the trusted DNS server devices.
Re claim 19, Ma discloses in [0021] of checking the DHCPACK packet to analyze and verify the correctness of a domain name server (DNS). Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Hentunen discloses wherein the DNS system check comprises: comparing a DNS servers list provided by a DHCP server to an approved DNS server list to ensure that all servers listed on the DNS servers list provided by a DHCP server are from the approved DNS server list ([0134], evaluating integrity of a DNS server includes the operation of verifying if the acquired IP address of the DNS server device is included in a list of IP address of trusted DNS server devices). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Hentunen are analogous art because they all disclose a system check.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks and Kuchibhotla’s system check with Hentunen’s DNS server check verifying if the acquired IP address of the DNS server device is included in a list of trusted DNS server devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to know if the list of IP address includes the trusted DNS server devices.Claim 18, from which claim 19 is dependent upon, recites four system check condition, gateway system, check, a domain name server (DNS) system check, a domain search list check, or a subnet mask system check. If the prior art meets the limitation of a domain name server (DNS) system check, then the prior art satisfies the claim language. The other limitations of claim 19 are directed to further features of gateway system, check, a domain search list check, or a subnet mask system check which is not positively required by the claim language of 18 if the domain name server (DNS) system check condition is met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson and in view of Brooks and in view of Kuchibhotla and in view of Morrison (US 2010/0198992, hereinafter Morrison).
Re claim 6, Jackson discloses in [0027] network diagnostic test automatically determine a status of DHCP address for computing device with a query sent to the NTP server.
Jackson, Brook, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Morrison discloses wherein the one or more system checks includes a Network Time Protocol (NTP) system check comprising:
Comparing an NTP server list provided by a DHCP server to an approved NTP server list to ensure that all servers listed on the NTP server list provided by a DHCP server are from the approved NTP server list ([0071], session server to which clients may connect to acquires a list of approved NTP servers). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Morrison are analogous art because they all disclose a networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla’s verifying the correctness of an address with Morrison’s approved NTP server list to know which servers are already approved. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to know if the NTP server is approved.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson and in view of Brooks and in view of Kuchibhotla and in view of Hentunen and in view of Ford (US 2006/0218252, hereinafter Ford).
Re claim 7, Hentunen discloses in [0134], evaluating integrity of a DNS server includes the operation of verifying if the acquired IP address of the DNS server device is included in a list of IP address of trusted DNS server devices. Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Hentunen are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla’s system checks with Hentunen’s DNS check verifying if the acquired IP address of the DNS server device is included in a list of trusted DNS server devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to know if the list of IP address includes the trusted DNS server devices.
Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Hentunen do not clearly disclose wherein the one or more system checks includes a Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) system check comprising: comparing a non-proprietary TFTP server list provided by a DHCP server to an approved non-proprietary TFTP list to ensure that all servers listed on the non-proprietary TFTP server list provided by a DHCP server are from the approved non-proprietary TFTP server list; and comparing a proprietary TFTP server list provided by a DHCP server to an approved proprietary TFTP server list to ensure that all servers listed on the proprietary TFTP server list provided by a DHCP server are from the approved proprietary TFTP server list.
In the same field of endeavor, Ford discloses in [0026], parameters and/or DHCP options include NTP servers, SMTP server, TFTP servers, etc.. Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, Hentunen and Ford are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, Hentunen’s system checks with Ford’s TFTP server check. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by including multiple types of servers.
In addition, the examiner takes Official Notice that the system check to comparing a non-proprietary TFTP and a proprietary TFTP server listed to ensure that all servers listed on the non-proprietary TFTP and proprietary TFTP are provided by a DHCP server are from the approved proprietary TFTP server list would consist of the same steps of utilizing to verify integrity of another server. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included of verifying the integrity of a server in Hentunen by with TFTP server as disclosed in Ford to have other DHCP options. These advantages are well known to those skilled in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson and in view of Brooks and in view of Kuchibhotla and in view of Carriere (US 2012/0089713).
Re claim 8, Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Carriere discloses comparing a hostname override occurrence to a hostname override policy to determine if non-approved hostname overrides exist ([0010], assigning hostname to the client device by sending an acknowledgement including the hostname to the client device. [0023], DHCP acknowledgement message assigns the new hostname and updates the IP address associated with the hostname. DHCP assignments are overwritten for some/all of the devices if a faulty device is replaced with a working device. The acknowledgement is shows that approved hostname overrides exist. Once there is no acknowledgement, there non-approved hostname overrides do not exist). Jackson, Brooks, Asati, Ma, and Carriere are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla with Carriere’s assigning hostname to the client in order to send acknowledgement to the client device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to acknowledge if assigned hostname is sent to the client.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson and in view of Brooks and in view of Kuchibhotla and in view of Van De Poel (2011/0173348).
Re claim 9, Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Van De Poel discloses wherein the one or more system checks includes a multi-net system check comprising: comparing one or more gateway servers associated with each of a plurality of networks to determine if more than one of the plurality of networks are assigned to a same gateway server ([0005], [0012], gateway collects information from the gateway DHCP server lease table. Gateway device comprises an interface to a first network, interface to a second network and a local web server). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Van De Poel are analogous art because they all disclose a networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla with Van De Poel’s gateway that includes multiple networks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by having multiple networks available on one gateway.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson and in view of Brooks and in view of Kuchibhotla and in view of Hentunen and in view of Bahlmann (US 6,578,074).
Re claim 10, Hentunen discloses in [0134], evaluating integrity of a DNS server includes the operation of verifying if the acquired IP address of the DNS server device is included in a list of IP address of trusted DNS server devices. Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Hentunen do not explicitly disclose, however Bahlmann discloses comparing lease tables from a plurality of scopes to identify DHCP client devices occurring in more than one lease table as multi-homed devices and comparing the multi-homed devices to machine names occurring in an asset database to determine if non-authorized multi-homed devices exist (col. 10, lines 44-65, clients having multiple leases, expired lease are offered to the client each time the client roams back to the previous network. Existing DHCP queries the status of existing leases to report all active and all expired leases. Compares the time to find the most recently granted lease). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, Hentunen and Bahlmann are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Hentunen’s DHCP server that verifies the addresses of the DNS server with Bahlmann’s multiple DHCP server having multiple leases in order compare if the multiple leases are trusted. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by having multiple DHCP available as a resource to respond.
Claims 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson and in view of Brooks and in view of Kuchibhotla and in view of Vijayakumar (US 2011/0162060, hereinafter Vijayakumar).
With respect to claim 11, Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Vijayakumar discloses wherein the one or more system checks includes a firewall-drop system check comprising: comparing messages drop entries in a firewall log to one or more DHCP client devices to determine if DHCP messages are being dropped ([0098], firewall rules allow or deny/block the packet from passing through the firewall). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Vijayakumar are analogous art because they all disclose a networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla’s with Vijayakumar’s Firewall rules in order to allow or deny/block packets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more secure system by using rules to allow certain packets to pass or not.
With respect to claim 13, Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Vijayakumar discloses wherein executing the one or more system checks comprises: identifying a policy specifying the operating condition against which a system check result is compared; and setting the target condition based on the policy ([0003], firewall policies. Filter the network packets based on the firewalls). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Vijayakumar are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla with Vijayakumar’s Firewall rules in order to filter packets through a firewall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more secure system by using rules to allow certain packets to pass or not.
With respect to claim 14, Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Vijayakumar discloses wherein executing the one or more system checks comprises: identifying a configuration parameter specifying an initial condition for a system check of the one or more system checks, and applying the configuration parameter to the system check of the one or more system checks (The policy comprises firewall rules are defined based on a WLAN parameter). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Vijayakumar are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Asati, and Ma’s DHCP server with Vijayakumar’s Firewall rules in order to filter packets through a firewall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more secure system by using rules to allow certain packets to pass or not.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson and in view of Brooks and in view of Kuchibhotla and in view of Ketonen (US 2017/0339630, hereinafter Ketonen) and in view of Carriere.
With respect to claim 15, Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Ketonen discloses executing the one or more system checks comprises: executing the one or more system checks periodically, or executing the one or more system checks on demand ([0043], periodicity at which each test should be run). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Ketonen are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla with Ketonen’s testing system in order to determine the periodicity at which east test should be run. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to determine the periodicity the tests should be ran.
Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Ketonen do not clearly disclose, however Carriere discloses a daemon ([0045], the word “server” may also mean a service daemon. Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, Ketonenm and Carriere are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla and Ketonen’s server in order to be a service daemon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to be a service daemon on a single computer, virtual computer, or shared physical computer, etc.
With respect to claim 16, Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla do not explicitly disclose, however Ketonen discloses wherein executing the one or more system checks periodically from the daemon comprises: transmitting, in response to executing the one or more system checks periodically from the daemon, a notification indicating that the one or more system checks were executed ([0043], periodicity at which each test should be run. Sending notifications diagnosing wireless network service quality issues). Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Ketonen are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, and Kuchibhotla testing services Ketonen’s testing system in order to determine the periodicity at which east test should be run. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to determine the periodicity the tests should be ran.
Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla, and Ketonen do not clearly disclose, however Carriere discloses a daemon ([0045], the word “server” may also mean a service daemon). Jackson, Brooks Kuchibhotla, Ketonen and Carriere are analogous art because they all disclose networked environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Jackson, Brooks, Kuchibhotla and Ketonen’s server in order to be a service daemon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by being able to be a service daemon on a single computer, virtual computer, or shared physical computer, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443