DETAILED ACTION
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file: Amendment date 04/20/2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner would like to bring one thing to the Applicant's attention. First, all the independent claim set should related to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept because independent claims 1, 11 and 15 are amended toward to different inventions. Examiner suggests applicant to includes the same limitations in each independent claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 line 13 recites “monitor device oversubscription of a network device of the plurality of network devices to determine whether the network device has insufficient available bandwidth to support traffic defined by the configuration file or is unable to meet a latency or performance specification” does not disclosed in specification. As most in the specification ¶[0045], only discloses “if Ethernet switches are oversubscribed or the network may not meet latency or other performance requirements, the issues may be reported or addressed” does not disclose any insufficient available bandwidth to support traffic defined by the configuration file. In additional, specification only disclose the network may not meet latency or other performance requirement instead of “the network device is unable to meet a latency or performance specification” in ¶[0045]. Since dependent claims 16-20 depend on the independent claim 15, they are rejected for the same reason as described hereinabove.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutnuru et al. (US 2022/0217052 A1) in view of Barton et al. (US 2020/0351249 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mutnuru teaches a system for path planning in a programmable communication network, comprising:
a configurable communication device in a data plane of the programmable communication network (server 116 administer and manage computing network 102 see Mutnuru: Fig.1; ¶[0056]); and
a network controller in a control plane, in communication with a plurality of programmable communication devices that includes the configurable communication device (configuration server 130 can be configured to receive an output comprising information relating to one or several devices within a computing network see Mutnuru: Fig.1; ¶[0067]), wherein the network controller is configured to:
receive a configuration file including information regarding a plurality of data consuming/producing devices (receiving, by the configuration server 130, a YAML file (corresponding to configuration file) comprising information relating to plurality network devices see Mutnuru: ¶[0067-0068]; ¶[0479-0480]);
configure the data plane in accordance with the configuration file to facilitate communications among the plurality of data consuming/producing devices using the plurality of programmable communication devices (configurations sever 130 configuring the plurality devices within a computer network based on a configuration file, where configuration file is generated based on the YAML file see Mutnuru: ¶[0067-0068]; Fig.5);
generate a plurality of communication flows for communication through the programmable communication network from a source node to a destination node (generating traffic flows by communicate and exchange data with each other “These thousands of applications may be executed by hundreds (or even more) of servers and the applications and servers need to communicate and exchange data with each other in the provision of the cloud services” see Mutnuru: ¶[0038-0039]; Fig.1); and
program the plurality of programmable communication devices in the data plane based on the plurality of communication flows (routing and handing of traffic between applications and client subscribed of the cloud services “A typical cloud network for a cloud services provider comprises multiple routers and switches that are responsible for routing and handling of traffic between applications executed by servers within the infrastructure of the cloud services provider. The servers may be spread across one of more data centers” see Mutnuru: ¶[0038-0039]; Fig.1).
Mutnuru does not explicitly teaches wherein the configuration file conforms to a format for use in an electric power delivery system and generate a plurality of communication flow based on the configuration file.
However, Barton teaches the wherein the configuration file conforms to a format for use in an electric power delivery system (SCD file use as a type of SCL file to communicate substation see Barton: ¶[0045]; Figs.2-3; Fig.5 step 510) and generate a plurality of communication flow based on the configuration file (create network control parameters based on SCD file see Barton: Fig.5 step 520; ¶[0065]) in order to secure substation communications using security groups based on substation configurations (see Barton: ¶[0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Mutnuru to include (or to use, etc.) the wherein the configuration file conforms to a format for use in an electric power delivery system and generate a plurality of communication flow based on the configuration file as taught by Barton in order to secure substation communications using security groups based on substation configurations (see Barton: ¶[0001]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the configuration file comprises an IEC61850 file that conforms to a Substation Configuration Language (SCL) format (YAML file ad other modeling language see Mutnuru: ¶[0084]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 2 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the configuration file comprises a host configuration file of a host on the network (host file see Mutnuru: ¶[0097-0098]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the configuration file conforms to a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format (JSON file see Mutnuru: ¶[0462]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the configurable communication device is configured to: receive configuration information including at least a portion of the plurality of communication flows from the network controller (receiving, by the configuration server 130, a YAML file (corresponding to configuration file) comprising information relating to plurality network devices see Mutnuru: ¶[0067-0068]; ¶[0479-0480]); and facilitate communications in accordance with the received at least a portion of the plurality of communication flows (routing and handing of traffic between applications and client subscribed of the cloud services “A typical cloud network for a cloud services provider comprises multiple routers and switches that are responsible for routing and handling of traffic between applications executed by servers within the infrastructure of the cloud services provider. The servers may be spread across one of more data centers” see Mutnuru: ¶[0038-0039]; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the network controller is configured to determine locations of the plurality of data consuming/producing devices from the configuration file (configuration file include location base setting see Mutnuru: ¶[0458-0459]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 6 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the network controller is configured to map Internet Protocol (IP) addresses in the configuration file to known hosts of the plurality of data consuming/producing devices (IP address in the device table “The device table can further include: device DNS names, identification of peer devices, a list of interfaces for each device, location of the device in the computing network 102, network parameters for the device, the IP addresses for the device, and device settings” see Mutnuru: ¶[0063]; Fig.17).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 7 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the network controller is configured to use MAC addresses and VLAN IDs from the configuration file to match traffic to and from the data consuming/producing devices (use vendor information and VLAN ID “The dictionary can, in some embodiments, contain: metadata, data identifying a vender/device/role for each device, interface attributes, chassis attributes, flow settings protocol settings, VRF settings, and/or VLAN settings for all of the devices represented in the received data and/or for which a configuration file is being automatically generated” see Mutnuru: ¶[0480]; ¶[0502]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 8 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the network controller is configured to determine publishers and subscribers for the plurality of communication flows to generate a list of publishers and subscribers (subscriber based cloud services see Mutnuru: ¶[0536-0537]; ¶[0547]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 9 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein programming the plurality of programmable communication devices comprises provisioning the plurality of data consuming/producing devices on the list of publishers and subscribers (Cloud infrastructure system 1402 may also collect usage statistics regarding a customer's use of subscribed services see Mutnuru: ¶[0547]).
Regarding claim 11, Mutnuru teaches non-transitory, computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, that when executed by a processor, are configured to cause the processor to:
receive a configuration file containing information about a plurality of data producing/consuming devices coupled to a controller (receiving, by the configuration server 130, a YAML file (corresponding to configuration file) comprising information relating to plurality network devices see Mutnuru: ¶[0067-0068]; ¶[0479-0480]);
determine locations of the plurality of data producing/consuming devices from the configuration file (location of the device in the computing network “The device table can further include: device DNS names, identification of peer devices, a list of interfaces for each device, location of the device in the computing network 102, network parameters for the device, the IP addresses for the device, and device settings” see Mutnuru: ¶[0063]; Fig.17); and
configure communication devices based on the determined locations and the configuration file (creates link for the communication device based on location information “identify devices within the computing network 102, the location of the devices within the computing network 102, links between the devices within the computing network 102 and this automation process creates the symbolic link to given configuration file by encoding its location information in the configuration file name” see Mutnuru: ¶[0070]; ¶[0433]).
Mutnuru does not explicitly teaches wherein the configuration file conforms to a format for use in an electric power delivery system.
However, Barton teaches the wherein the configuration file conforms to a format for use in an electric power delivery system (SCD file use as a type of SCL file to communicate substation see Barton: ¶[0045]; Figs.2-3; Fig.5 step 510) in order to secure substation communications using security groups based on substation configurations (see Barton: ¶[0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Mutnuru to include (or to use, etc.) the wherein the configuration file conforms to a format for use in an electric power delivery system as taught by Barton in order to secure substation communications using security groups based on substation configurations (see Barton: ¶[0001]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Mutnuru taught the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 11 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the communication devices comprise network switches (fabric switches 108 and 112 see Mutnuru: Fig.1; ¶[0054]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Mutnuru taught the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 11 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein the configuration file comprises an IEC61850 file (YAML file ad other modeling language see Mutnuru: ¶[0084]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as the system of claim 4 as set forth hereinabove.
Claims 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutnuru et al. (US 2022/0217052 A1) in view of Barton et al. (US 2020/0351249 A1) and further in view of Morrill et al. (US 2017/0339217 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Mutnuru teaches a system for monitoring health in a programmable communication network, comprising:
a configurable communication device in a data plane of the programmable communication network (server 116 administer and manage computing network 102 see Mutnuru: Fig.1; ¶[0056]); and
a network controller in a control plane, in communication with a plurality of network devices that includes the configurable communication device (configuration server 130 can be configured to receive an output comprising information relating to one or several devices within a computing network see Mutnuru: Fig.1; ¶[0067]), wherein the network controller is configured to:
receive a configuration file (receiving, by the configuration server 130, a YAML file (corresponding to configuration file) comprising information relating to plurality network devices see Mutnuru: ¶[0067-0068]; ¶[0479-0480]);
configure at least a portion of the plurality of network devices based the configuration file (configurations sever 130 configuring the plurality devices within a computer network based on a configuration file, where configuration file is generated based on the YAML file see Mutnuru: ¶[0067-0068]; Fig.5).
Mutnuru does not explicitly teaches configuration file that conforms to a format for use in an electric power delivery system.
However, Barton teaches the configuration file conforms to a format for use in an electric power delivery system (SCD file use as a type of SCL file to communicate substation see Barton: ¶[0045]; Figs.2-3; Fig.5 step 510) in order to secure substation communications using security groups based on substation configurations (see Barton: ¶[0001]).
The Mutnuru does not explicitly teaches monitor a network device of the plurality of network devices to determine whether the network device has insufficient available bandwidth to support traffic defined by the configuration file or is unable to meet a latency or performance specification; and determine health of the programmable communication network based at least in part on the monitored device.
However, Morrill teaches the monitor a network device of the plurality of network devices to determine whether the network device has insufficient available bandwidth to support traffic defined by the configuration file or is unable to meet a latency or performance specification; and determine health of the programmable communication network based at least in part on the monitored device oversubscription (tracking path or element oversubscription rate and managing network performance “provisioning may include a variety of functions, including (i) tracking path or element oversubscription rates and utilization prior to allowing network provisioning to occur, (ii) managing network performance tracking by creating reports for newly created entities, (iii) dedicating or calculating failover, (iv) load balancing for re-routing of real-time or non-real-time content communications” see Morrill ¶[0269]) in order to provide load balancing over the wireless communication (Morill: ¶[0285]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of the modified Mutnuru to include (or to use, etc.) the monitor a network device of the plurality of network devices to determine whether the network device has insufficient available bandwidth to support traffic defined by the configuration file or is unable to meet a latency or performance specification; and determine health of the programmable communication network based at least in part on the monitored device as taught by Morrill in order to provide load balancing over the wireless communication (Morill: ¶[0285]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 2 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 4 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 15 as described hereinabove. Mutnuru further teaches wherein monitoring of the network device comprises: determining that the network device has insufficient available bandwidth to support traffic defined by the configuration file or is unable to meet a latency or performance specification (usage statistics regarding relate to customer subscribed service; system up/down time and subscriber based cloud services “cloud infrastructure system 1402 may also collect usage statistics regarding a customer's use of subscribed services” see Mutnuru: ¶[0547]).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 15 as described hereinabove. Morrill further teaches the wherein monitoring device oversubscription of the network device comprises: determining that the network device has insufficient available bandwidth to support traffic defined by the configuration file or is unable to meet a latency or performance specification has insufficient available bandwidth to support traffic defined by the configuration file or is unable to meet a latency or performance specification; and changing routing in the programmable communication network based at least in part on the determination (tracking path or element oversubscription rate and rerouting the content communications “provisioning may include a variety of functions, including (i) tracking path or element oversubscription rates and utilization prior to allowing network provisioning to occur, (ii) managing network performance tracking by creating reports for newly created entities, (iii) dedicating or calculating failover, (iv) load balancing for re-routing of real-time or non-real-time content communications” see Morrill ¶[0269]) in order to provide load balancing over the wireless communication (Morill: ¶[0285]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Mutnuru taught the system of claim 15 as described hereinabove. Morill further teaches the wherein the network controller is configured to determine whether any changes have occurred from a baseline condition, and determining the health is based at least in part on whether any changes have occurred from the baseline condition (tracking path or element oversubscription rate and managing network performance “provisioning may include a variety of functions, including (i) tracking path or element oversubscription rates and utilization prior to allowing network provisioning to occur, (ii) managing network performance tracking by creating reports for newly created entities, (iii) dedicating or calculating failover, (iv) load balancing for re-routing of real-time or non-real-time content communications” see Morrill ¶[0269]) in order to provide load balancing over the wireless communication (Morill: ¶[0285]).
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 GUANG W LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7AM-5PMET.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
June 25, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights