Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/371,848

ECMP-AWARE TWAMP PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Examiner
GOODWIN, SCHQUITA D
Art Unit
2459
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Cisco Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
213 granted / 320 resolved
+8.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
340
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 320 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. 18/371,848 filed on 22 September 2023. This application claims provisional 63/522,238 filed on 21 June 2023. The response filed 6 January 2026 cancels claims 17- 20, adds claims 21-24, and presents arguments is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are presented for examination. 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 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2020/0296012 A1 to Paruchuri et al and in view of US PGPUB 2023/0231798 A1 to Chunduri et al. Regarding Claim 1, Paruchuri discloses a method performed at least partially by a first node of a network (FIG. 2, SD-WAN Appliance 38 of SD-WAN 37 network), the method comprising: determining that a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) probe is to be sent to a second node along an equal-cost multipath (ECMP) route between the first node and the second node (0032, 0042, and 0055 provides for determining a TWAMP measurement is to be sent to a network device along an ECMP route between the SD-WAN appliance 38 and the network device); generating a packet for sending the TWAMP probe to the second node along the ECMP route (0032, 0042, and 0055 provides for generating a synthetic probe for a TWAMP measurement to be sent to the network device along an ECMP route); sending the packet to the second node along the ECMP route (0032, 0042, and 0055 provides for sending the synthetic probe to the network device along an ECMP route); receiving, from the second node, the packet including telemetry data associated with the second node and a midpoint node of the ECMP route (FIG. 2, 0042, and 0055 provides for receiving, from the network deice, the SLA result of the synthetic probe associated with the application server 58 and SD-WAN appliance 56 midpoint node); and determining, based at least in part on the telemetry data, a metric indicative of a performance measurement associated with the ECMP route (0041-0042 and 0061 provides for determining, based at least on the SLA result, the optimal link based on QoE metrics). Paruchuri doesn’t explicitly disclose the packet including first address information associated with the ECMP route and second address information for the packet to be returned to the first node from the second node. Chunduri, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses the packet including first address information associated with the ECMP route and second address information for the packet to be returned to the first node from the second node (0069 and 0111 provides for TWAMP probe packets include first address chip-level statistics for node 108 and second address chip-level statistics for node 110 using header information). 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 Chunduri for including device addresses in probing packets. The probing addresses of Chunduri, when implemented with the optimal synthetic probing of the Paruchuri system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to organize probing to a specific leg of a network in order to control the accuracy of link performance. 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 probing addresses of Chunduri with the optimal synthetic probing of the Paruchuri system for the desirable purpose of optimizing the probing strategy in a network. Regarding Claim 2, the Paruchuri/Chunduri system discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the performance measurement comprises at least one of a latency (Paruchuri, 0036 service latency measurements), a loss, or a liveness associated with the ECMP route (Paruchuri, 0042 provides for ECMP links). Regarding Claim 3, the Paruchuri/Chunduri system discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the telemetry data is included in a hop-by-hop field of the packet (Chunduri, 0095 provides for hop-by-hop options), the telemetry data including a portion of a timestamp (Paruchuri, 0036 provides for timestamp), an interface identifier (Paruchuri, 0050-0051 provides for interface), and an interface load associated with each one of the second node and the midpoint node (Paruchuri, 0050-0051 provides for traffic analysis associated with incoming interface). Same motivation as claim 1. Regarding Claim 5, the Paruchuri/Chunduri system discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the ECMP route is a first ECMP route and the metric is determined based at least in part on additional telemetry data received from sending a second TWAMP probe along a second ECMP route, the metric indicative of a difference in performance between the first ECMP route and the second ECMP route (Chunduri, 0107 provides for calculating a difference between a primary path and an alternate path). Same motivation as claim 1. Regarding Claim 6, the Paruchuri/Chunduri system discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the ECMP route is one of multiple ECMP routes through the network between the first node and the second node (Paruchuri, FIG. 2 and 0041-0042 provides for multiple links 40, 42, and 44 of ECMP routes). Regarding Claim 7, the Paruchuri/Chunduri system discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the telemetry data is associated with a forwarding path of the packet along the ECMP route between the first node and the second node (Paruchuri, 0041-0042 and 0061 provides for the SLA result is associated with a forward path along ECMP route in FIG 2), the second node configured to modify a hop-by-hop option type of the packet to prevent collection of telemetry data associated with a return path from the second node to the first node (Chunduri, 0095 provides for hop-by-hop options). Same motivation as claim 1. Regarding Claim 8, the Paruchuri/Chunduri system discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a format of the packet is a same format as customer traffic traversing the ECMP route, the packet further including an indicator for the second node to distinguish the packet from the customer traffic (Chunduri, 0094 provides for a BPP packet format). Same motivation as claim 1. Regarding Claim 9, similar rejection where the method of claim 1 teaches the system of claim 9. Regarding Claim 10, similar rejection where the method of claim 2 teaches the system of claim 10. Regarding Claim 11, similar rejection where the method of claim 3 teaches the system of claim 11. Regarding Claim 13, similar rejection where the method of claim 5 teaches the system of claim 13. Regarding Claim 14, similar rejection where the method of claim 6 teaches the system of claim 14. Regarding Claim 15, similar rejection where the method of claim 7 teaches the system of claim 15. Regarding Claim 16, similar rejection where the method of claim 8 teaches the system of claim 16. Regarding Claim 21, similar rejection where the method of claim 1 teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 21. Regarding Claim 22, similar rejection where the method of claim 2 teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 22. Regarding Claim 23, similar rejection where the method of claim 3 teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 23. Claims 4, 12, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Paruchuri/Chunduri system as applied to claims 1, 9, and 21 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2023/0047613 A1 to Frankel et al. Regarding Claim 4, the Paruchuri/Chunduri system discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising sending the metric to a measurement analytics system associated with the network (Paruchuri, 0060 provides for information stored in a database). The Paruchuri/Chunduri system doesn’t explicitly disclose the metric comprising a histogram indicative of a performance associated with the ECMP route relative to another ECMP route through the network. Frankel, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses the metric comprising a histogram indicative of a performance associated with the ECMP route relative to another ECMP route through the network (FIG. 11 and 0056-0057 provides for a histogram of the distribution across hops when traffic is routed across ECMP). 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 Frankel for utilizing a histogram. The histogram distribution of Frankel, when implemented with the optimal synthetic probing of the Paruchuri/Chunduri system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to display the measured data in order to visually review the accuracy of link performance. 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 histogram distribution of Frankel with the optimal synthetic probing of the Paruchuri/Chunduri system for the desirable purpose of optimizing the probing strategy in a network. Regarding Claim 12, similar rejection where the method of claim 4 teaches the system of claim 12. Regarding Claim 24, similar rejection where the method of claim 4 teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 24. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PGPUB 2023/0145097 A1 to Kiran et al discloses autonomous traffic with active learning. US PGPUB 2020/0084147 A1 to Gandhi et al discloses in-situ performance measurement in a network. US PGPUB 2017/0324622 A1 to Ubadli et al discloses TWAMP functions. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598124
Network Performance Measurement Method, Apparatus, Device, and System, and Storage Medium
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593251
TIMING ADVANCE IN LAYER 1/LAYER 2 INTERCELL MOBILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587461
IN-VEHICLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION PATH EVALUATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580830
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ON-DEMAND CLOUD INTERFACES MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580835
TUNNELED COMMUNICATION MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+13.0%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 320 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month