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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 10/9/2025.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 17 have been amended.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Examiner notes
Claim 1 limitation “wherein the network monitoring system is configured to” does not invoke 112(f) and does not reject under 35 USC § 101 because claim 10 defined “wherein the network monitoring system is a network node” and specification disclose its physical structure at [0001] Each of the computers and/or communication devices in the computer network is called a network node.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) a and b filed on 10/9/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In the communication field, applicant argues in substance that:
a. Regarding claim(s) 1 and 17, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 9-10)
“Applicant has reviewed Rahkala and, respectfully, Rahkala itself never mentions or describes that "a portion, less than all, of the plurality of packets further include a first identifier". Instead, it appears that the Examiner has assumed this feature to follow from the description, in paragraphs 33 and 34, that "the packet may comprise at least some of the following fields: a network address 301, a domain address 302, a source node identifier 303, a target node identifier 304, a last node identifier 305, a frame identifier 306, a hop identifier 307, a service source identifier 308, a service target identifier 309, flood control field or bit 310, payload 311, and checksum 312". More specifically, the Office Action states that, "The packets may include some of the identifiers/the first identifiers such as the domain address 302, source node identifier 303. It's obvious to some of packets having source node identifier 303, or not having source identifier 303." Applicant cannot agree with this characterization-specifically that it is "obvious"
that some packets will include the source identifier 303 while others will not. It is not clear at all to Applicant why this would be obvious when Rahkala is completely silent as to any situation where the source node identifier 303 is available, but not included, for some set of nodes. The description in paragraph 34 that various fields are possible is not logically equivalent to any scenario in which the source node identifier 303 is available, but not included, for some set of nodes.”
b. Regarding claim(s) 1 and 17, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 10-11)
“Notwithstanding the above, Nigam and Rahkala do not further teach "wherein the network monitoring system is configured to identify a potentially defective pathway based on the efficiency of packet transmission for the first predetermined characteristic" and "wherein, responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, the network monitoring system is further configured to initiate a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway
comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway." Lin was relied upon in the Office Action for the specific limitations directed to the network monitoring system (see, e.g., page 5 of the Office Action).”
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/9/2025 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over nigam (US 20240031264A1) in view of Magadevan (US 20200037226 A1) in view of Lin (US 20200304605 A1) in view of Vasseur (US 20210218658 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, a system for establishing network reliability for a computer network comprising:
nigam teaches a plurality of initiating nodes to transmit a plurality of packets across the network, the plurality of packets are appended with identifiers that correspond to characteristics of entities using the network, (nigam, [0032], one or more of collector 310 and platform 320 may alternatively be implemented as dedicated hardware devices programmed to collect flow records from one or more edge devices 220-226. [0033], metrics therefrom which may be useful in characterizing the data flow of applications and/or edge devices, including for example a number of lost packets, round trip time (RTT), flow direction, and any other IP traffic statistics or information that may be desired. [0044], which discloses collecting packet data including metrics, application id and source id. Edge1 and Edge2. Collector 310 may compile any quantities capable of determination from packet data, but in this specific example, collector 310 reads quantities such as the application ID (i.e., the application for which the packets are intended, or from), the source address of the application (for packets from the application), and destination address (for packets sent to the application). [examiner notes: metrics interpret to be second identifiers. Application ID and the source address of the application intercepts to be first identifiers.])
the identifiers comprising first identifiers and second identifiers, the first identifiers uniquely assigned to each initiating node, the second identifiers not unique to any particular node, instead uniquely corresponding to predetermined characteristics, (nigam, [0033], metrics therefrom which may be useful in characterizing the data flow of applications and/or edge devices, including for example a number of lost packets, round trip time (RTT), flow direction, and any other IP traffic statistics or information that may be desired. [0044], which discloses collecting packet data including metrics, application id and source id. Edge1 and Edge2. Collector 310 may compile any quantities capable of determination from packet data, but in this specific example, collector 310 reads quantities such as the application ID (i.e., the application for which the packets are intended, or from), the source address of the application (for packets from the application), and destination address (for packets sent to the application). [examiner notes: metrics interpret to be second identifiers. Application ID and the source address of the application intercepts to be first identifiers.])
nigam does not teach wherein all packets of the plurality of packets include a second identifier and a portion, less than all, of the plurality of packets further include a first identifier of the respective initiating node transmitting the respective packet; a plurality of receiving nodes to receive the plurality of packets via the network, and to transmit acknowledgement receipts associated with packets appended with the identifiers to a network monitoring system that monitors quality of service associated with the characteristics; and the network monitoring system to determine an efficiency of packet transmission for a first predetermined characteristic based on a number of received acknowledgement receipts at a first initiating node and a number of initial packets sent out by the first initiating node with a corresponding first identifier and a respective second identifier for the first predetermined characteristic; wherein, responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, the network monitoring system is further configured to initiate a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway.
Magadevan however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein all packets of the plurality of packets include a second identifier and a portion, less than all, of the plurality of packets further include a first identifier of the respective initiating node transmitting the respective packet; (Magadevan, [0012], the use of non-IP communication, rather than IP communication, prolongs the operational endurance of NB-IoT devices. For example, IP communication that conforms to IPv4 or IPv6 requires each data packet that is sent and received by a device to have an IP data packet header. The IP data packet header may have a size that ranges between 40-128 bytes. In contrast, the data that is exchanged between the NB-IoT device and the application server may be only several bytes in size. This means that IP communication places a significant energy and processing overhead on the device during establishment and maintenance of the IP communication. In contrast, because non-IP communication enables data to be sent over the control plane of a wireless communication session without the use of IP data packet headers, such energy consumption and processing overheads may be reduced or eliminated. [examiner notes: a IP packet includes a IP header, a non-IP packet does not include IP header.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of nigam to specify wherein all packets of the plurality of packets include a second identifier and a portion, less than all, of the plurality of packets further include a first identifier of the respective initiating node transmitting the respective packet as taught by Magadevan. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to switching a NarrowBand-Internet of Things (NB-IoT) device between using non-Internet Protocol (IP) communication and IP communication to provide device management for the NB-IoT device (Magadevan, [0011]).
nigam does not teach a plurality of receiving nodes to receive the plurality of packets via the network, and to transmit acknowledgement receipts associated with packets appended with the identifiers to a network monitoring system that monitors quality of service associated with the characteristics; and the network monitoring system to determine an efficiency of packet transmission for a first predetermined characteristic based on a number of received acknowledgement receipts at a first initiating node and a number of initial packets sent out by the first initiating node with a corresponding first identifier and a respective second identifier for the first predetermined characteristic; wherein, responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, the network monitoring system is further configured to initiate a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway.
Lin however in the same field of computer networking teaches a plurality of receiving nodes to receive the plurality of packets via the network, and to transmit acknowledgement receipts associated with packets appended with the identifiers to a network monitoring system that monitors quality of service associated with the characteristics; and (Lin, [0064], determining a number of a received acknowledgment character (ACK) sent by the viewing device side; and [0065], determining the total number of the lost packet within the preset time based on the total number of the sent packet and the number of the received ACK within the preset time.)
the network monitoring system to determine an efficiency of packet transmission for a first predetermined characteristic based on a number of received acknowledgement receipts at a first initiating node and a number of initial packets sent out by the first initiating node with a corresponding first identifier and a respective second identifier for the first predetermined characteristic; (Lin, [0064], determining a number of a received acknowledgment character (ACK) sent by the viewing device side; and [0065], determining the total number of the lost packet within the preset time based on the total number of the sent packet and the number of the received ACK within the preset time. [examiner notes: nigam teaches first identifier and second identifier at [0033] and [0044].])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of nigam to specify a plurality of receiving nodes to receive the plurality of packets via the network, and to transmit acknowledgement receipts associated with packets appended with the identifiers to a network monitoring system that monitors quality of service associated with the characteristics; and the network monitoring system to determine an efficiency of packet transmission for a first predetermined characteristic based on a number of received acknowledgement receipts at a first initiating node and a number of initial packets sent out by the first initiating node with a corresponding first identifier.as taught by Lin. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmitting image to solve the technical problem of freeze of image playback (Lin, [0005]).
nigam does not teach wherein the network monitoring system is configured to identify a potentially defective pathway based on the efficiency of packet transmission for the first predetermined characteristic; wherein, responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, the network monitoring system is further configured to initiate a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway.
Vasseur however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the network monitoring system is configured to identify a potentially defective pathway based on the efficiency of packet transmission for the first predetermined characteristic; (Vasseur, [0051], FIG.3; to initiate traffic-based probing 412, traffic-based prober 406 may send a custom message to tail-end router 304 requesting activation of traffic-based probing 412 of tunnel 306, or for a set of tunnels between routers 302-304. For example, such a message may specify any or all of the following attributes to tail-end router 304: the set of tunnels (e.g., a set of tunnel identifiers) for which traffic-based probing is to be used, the types of metrics to be collected (e.g., loss, delay, jitter, etc.), and/or specific attributes for each type of metric/variables. Once enabled, traffic-based probing 412 allows tail-end router 304 to monitor the specified performance metrics of the data traffic along the tunnel(s).)
wherein, responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, the network monitoring system is further configured to initiate a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway. (Vasseur, [0034], FIG.3; the performance metrics of a tunnel that are learned from BFD probing can be used to enable application-aware routing. For example, assume that head-end router 302 is to send traffic for a video conferencing application. Further, assume that the SLA requirements for the video conferencing application (e.g., the jitter experienced by the traffic must be below a threshold X, the delays experienced by the traffic must be below a threshold Y, etc.) are specified by policy. In such a case, head-end router 302 may compare the SLA requirements of the video application traffic to the performance metrics of tunnel 306 learned from the sending of BFD probes 308, to determine whether tunnel 306 can satisfy the SLA requirements of the traffic, before routing the traffic onto tunnel 306. This process can also be repeated over time, to ensure that tunnel 306 still satisfies the SLA requirements of the traffic. If not, head-end router 302 may reroute the application traffic onto another tunnel that is expected to satisfy its SLA requirements. [0036], in addition to assessing the performance of tunnel 306, head-end router 302 can also use BFD probes 308 to detect when tunnel 306 fails. More specifically, if tail-end router 304 fails to acknowledge a BFD probe 308 with a corresponding acknowledgement 310 within a predefined window, head-end router 302 may determine that tunnel 306 has failed. In turn, head-end router 302 may reroute the traffic that was on tunnel 306 onto a different tunnel that is still active. [0051], to initiate traffic-based probing 412, traffic-based prober 406 may send a custom message to tail-end router 304 requesting activation of traffic-based probing 412 of tunnel 306, or for a set of tunnels between routers 302-304. For example, such a message may specify any or all of the following attributes to tail-end router 304: the set of tunnels (e.g., a set of tunnel identifiers) for which traffic-based probing is to be used, the types of metrics to be collected (e.g., loss, delay, jitter, etc.), and/or specific attributes for each type of metric/variables. Once enabled, traffic-based probing 412 allows tail-end router 304 to monitor the specified performance metrics of the data traffic along the tunnel(s). [examiner notes: the SLA requirements of the traffic defining routing paths is equivalent to the routing tables. The different tunnel is equivalent to the pathway. The traffic/message including a set of tunnel identifiers specific types of metrics and specific attributes is equivalent to the packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of nigam to specify wherein the network monitoring system is configured to identify a potentially defective pathway based on the efficiency of packet transmission for the first predetermined characteristic; wherein, responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, the network monitoring system is further configured to initiate a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway as taught by Vasseur. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to monitors an overhead associated with sending the BFD probes along the network tunnel. The device makes a determination that the overhead associated with sending the BFD probes along the network tunnel is unacceptable (Vasseur, [0012]).
Regarding claim(s) 17, a method for determining a network reliability for a computer network comprising:
nigam teaches transmitting a plurality of packets across a network from a plurality of initiating nodes to a plurality of receiving nodes; (nigam, [0032], one or more of collector 310 and platform 320 may alternatively be implemented as dedicated hardware devices programmed to collect flow records from one or more edge devices 220-226. [0033], metrics therefrom which may be useful in characterizing the data flow of applications and/or edge devices, including for example a number of lost packets, round trip time (RTT), flow direction, and any other IP traffic statistics or information that may be desired. [0044], which discloses collecting packet data including metrics, application id and source id. Edge1 and Edge2. Collector 310 may compile any quantities capable of determination from packet data, but in this specific example, collector 310 reads quantities such as the application ID (i.e., the application for which the packets are intended, or from), the source address of the application (for packets from the application), and destination address (for packets sent to the application). [examiner notes: metrics interpret to be second identifiers. Application ID and the source address of the application intercepts to be first identifiers.])
the plurality of packets appended with identifiers that correspond to characteristics of entities using the network, the identifiers comprising first identifiers and second identifiers, the first identifiers uniquely assigned to each initiating node, the second identifiers not unique to any particular node, instead uniquely corresponding to predetermined characteristics, (nigam, [0033], metrics therefrom which may be useful in characterizing the data flow of applications and/or edge devices, including for example a number of lost packets, round trip time (RTT), flow direction, and any other IP traffic statistics or information that may be desired. [0044], which discloses collecting packet data including metrics, application id and source id. Edge1 and Edge2. Collector 310 may compile any quantities capable of determination from packet data, but in this specific example, collector 310 reads quantities such as the application ID (i.e., the application for which the packets are intended, or from), the source address of the application (for packets from the application), and destination address (for packets sent to the application). [examiner notes: metrics interpret to be second identifiers. Application ID and the source address of the application intercepts to be first identifiers.])
where the network monitoring system monitors quality of service associated with the characteristics of the entities using the network; and (nigam, [0011], FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary system for monitoring performance of SD-WAN applications with respect to edge devices, for use with embodiments of the disclosure described herein;)
nigam does not teach wherein all packets of the plurality of packets include a second identifier and a portion, less than all, of the plurality of packets further include a first identifier of the respective initiating node transmitting the respective packet; transmitting acknowledgement receipts from the plurality of receiving nodes to a network monitoring system; and determining, at the network monitoring system, an efficiency of packet transmission for a first predetermined characteristic based on a number of received acknowledgement receipts at a first initiating node and a number of initial packets sent out by the first initiating node with a corresponding first identifier; where the acknowledgment receipts are associated with packets appended with the identifiers; where the network monitoring system effects a failover when the quality of service for packets associated with a specific characteristic reaches a threshold.
Magadevan however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein all packets of the plurality of packets include a second identifier and a portion, less than all, of the plurality of packets further include a first identifier of the respective initiating node transmitting the respective packet; (Magadevan, [0012], the use of non-IP communication, rather than IP communication, prolongs the operational endurance of NB-IoT devices. For example, IP communication that conforms to IPv4 or IPv6 requires each data packet that is sent and received by a device to have an IP data packet header. The IP data packet header may have a size that ranges between 40-128 bytes. In contrast, the data that is exchanged between the NB-IoT device and the application server may be only several bytes in size. This means that IP communication places a significant energy and processing overhead on the device during establishment and maintenance of the IP communication. In contrast, because non-IP communication enables data to be sent over the control plane of a wireless communication session without the use of IP data packet headers, such energy consumption and processing overheads may be reduced or eliminated. [examiner notes: a IP packet includes a IP header, a non-IP packet does not include IP header.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of nigam to specify wherein all packets of the plurality of packets include a second identifier and a portion, less than all, of the plurality of packets further include a first identifier of the respective initiating node transmitting the respective packet as taught by Magadevan. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to switching a NarrowBand-Internet of Things (NB-IoT) device between using non-Internet Protocol (IP) communication and IP communication to provide device management for the NB-IoT device (Magadevan, [0011]).
nigam does not teach transmitting acknowledgement receipts from the plurality of receiving nodes to a network monitoring system; and determining, at the network monitoring system, an efficiency of packet transmission for a first predetermined characteristic based on a number of received acknowledgement receipts at a first initiating node and a number of initial packets sent out by the first initiating node with a corresponding first identifier and a respective second identifier for the first predetermined characteristic; identifying a potentially defective pathway based on the efficiency of packet transmission for the first predetermined characteristic; and responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, initiating a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway; where the acknowledgment receipts are associated with packets appended with the identifiers; where the network monitoring system effects a failover when the quality of service for packets associated with a specific characteristic reaches a threshold.
Lin however in the same field of computer networking teaches transmitting acknowledgement receipts from the plurality of receiving nodes to a network monitoring system; and (Lin, [0064], determining a number of a received acknowledgment character (ACK) sent by the viewing device side; and [0065], determining the total number of the lost packet within the preset time based on the total number of the sent packet and the number of the received ACK within the preset time.)
determining, at the network monitoring system, an efficiency of packet transmission for a first predetermined characteristic based on a number of received acknowledgement receipts at a first initiating node and a number of initial packets sent out by the first initiating node with a corresponding first identifier and a respective second identifier for the first predetermined characteristic; (Lin, [0064], determining a number of a received acknowledgment character (ACK) sent by the viewing device side; and [0065], determining the total number of the lost packet within the preset time based on the total number of the sent packet and the number of the received ACK within the preset time. [examiner notes: nigam teaches first identifier and second identifier at [0033] and [0044].])
where the acknowledgment receipts are associated with packets appended with the identifiers; (Lin, [0064], determining a number of a received acknowledgment character (ACK) sent by the viewing device side; and [0065], determining the total number of the lost packet within the preset time based on the total number of the sent packet and the number of the received ACK within the preset time.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of nigam to specify transmitting acknowledgement receipts from the plurality of receiving nodes to a network monitoring system; and determining, at the network monitoring system, an efficiency of packet transmission for a first predetermined characteristic based on a number of received acknowledgement receipts at a first initiating node and a number of initial packets sent out by the first initiating node with a corresponding first identifier; where the acknowledgment receipts are associated with packets appended with the identifiers as taught by Lin. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmitting image to solve the technical problem of freeze of image playback (Lin, [0005]).
nigam does not teach identifying a potentially defective pathway based on the efficiency of packet transmission for the first predetermined characteristic; and responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, initiating a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway; where the network monitoring system effects a failover when the quality of service for packets associated with a specific characteristic reaches a threshold.
Vasseur however in the same field of computer networking teaches identifying a potentially defective pathway based on the efficiency of packet transmission for the first predetermined characteristic; (Vasseur, [0051], FIG.3; to initiate traffic-based probing 412, traffic-based prober 406 may send a custom message to tail-end router 304 requesting activation of traffic-based probing 412 of tunnel 306, or for a set of tunnels between routers 302-304. For example, such a message may specify any or all of the following attributes to tail-end router 304: the set of tunnels (e.g., a set of tunnel identifiers) for which traffic-based probing is to be used, the types of metrics to be collected (e.g., loss, delay, jitter, etc.), and/or specific attributes for each type of metric/variables. Once enabled, traffic-based probing 412 allows tail-end router 304 to monitor the specified performance metrics of the data traffic along the tunnel(s).)
and responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, initiating a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway; (Vasseur, [0034], FIG.3; the performance metrics of a tunnel that are learned from BFD probing can be used to enable application-aware routing. For example, assume that head-end router 302 is to send traffic for a video conferencing application. Further, assume that the SLA requirements for the video conferencing application (e.g., the jitter experienced by the traffic must be below a threshold X, the delays experienced by the traffic must be below a threshold Y, etc.) are specified by policy. In such a case, head-end router 302 may compare the SLA requirements of the video application traffic to the performance metrics of tunnel 306 learned from the sending of BFD probes 308, to determine whether tunnel 306 can satisfy the SLA requirements of the traffic, before routing the traffic onto tunnel 306. This process can also be repeated over time, to ensure that tunnel 306 still satisfies the SLA requirements of the traffic. If not, head-end router 302 may reroute the application traffic onto another tunnel that is expected to satisfy its SLA requirements. [0036], in addition to assessing the performance of tunnel 306, head-end router 302 can also use BFD probes 308 to detect when tunnel 306 fails. More specifically, if tail-end router 304 fails to acknowledge a BFD probe 308 with a corresponding acknowledgement 310 within a predefined window, head-end router 302 may determine that tunnel 306 has failed. In turn, head-end router 302 may reroute the traffic that was on tunnel 306 onto a different tunnel that is still active. [0051], to initiate traffic-based probing 412, traffic-based prober 406 may send a custom message to tail-end router 304 requesting activation of traffic-based probing 412 of tunnel 306, or for a set of tunnels between routers 302-304. For example, such a message may specify any or all of the following attributes to tail-end router 304: the set of tunnels (e.g., a set of tunnel identifiers) for which traffic-based probing is to be used, the types of metrics to be collected (e.g., loss, delay, jitter, etc.), and/or specific attributes for each type of metric/variables. Once enabled, traffic-based probing 412 allows tail-end router 304 to monitor the specified performance metrics of the data traffic along the tunnel(s). [examiner notes: the SLA requirements of the traffic is equivalent to the routing tables. The different tunnel is equivalent to the pathway. The traffic/message including a set of tunnel identifiers specific types of metrics and specific attributes is equivalent to the packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier.])
where the network monitoring system effects a failover when the quality of service for packets associated with a specific characteristic reaches a threshold. (Vasseur, [0035], the performance metrics of a tunnel that are learned from BFD probing can be used to enable application-aware routing. For example, assume that head-end router 302 is to send traffic for a video conferencing application. Further, assume that the SLA requirements for the video conferencing application (e.g., the jitter experienced by the traffic must be below a threshold X, the delays experienced by the traffic must be below a threshold Y, etc.) are specified by policy. In such a case, head-end router 302 may compare the SLA requirements of the video application traffic to the performance metrics of tunnel 306 learned from the sending of BFD probes 308, to determine whether tunnel 306 can satisfy the SLA requirements of the traffic, before routing the traffic onto tunnel 306. This process can also be repeated over time, to ensure that tunnel 306 still satisfies the SLA requirements of the traffic. If not, head-end router 302 may reroute the application traffic onto another tunnel that is expected to satisfy its SLA requirements.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of nigam to specify identifying a potentially defective pathway based on the efficiency of packet transmission for the first predetermined characteristic; and responsive to identifying the potentially defective pathway, initiating a diagnostic process in which routing tables in a portion of the nodes may be activated to control a pathway for packets having both the corresponding first identifier and the respective second identifier, the pathway comprising at least a portion of the potentially defective pathway as taught by Vasseur. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to monitors an overhead associated with sending the BFD probes along the network tunnel. The device makes a determination that the overhead associated with sending the BFD probes along the network tunnel is unacceptable (Vasseur, [0012]).
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2, the system of Claim 1,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur teach where the network monitoring system effects a failover when the quality of service for packets associated with a specific characteristic reaches a threshold. (Vasseur, [0035], the performance metrics of a tunnel that are learned from BFD probing can be used to enable application-aware routing. For example, assume that head-end router 302 is to send traffic for a video conferencing application. Further, assume that the SLA requirements for the video conferencing application (e.g., the jitter experienced by the traffic must be below a threshold X, the delays experienced by the traffic must be below a threshold Y, etc.) are specified by policy. In such a case, head-end router 302 may compare the SLA requirements of the video application traffic to the performance metrics of tunnel 306 learned from the sending of BFD probes 308, to determine whether tunnel 306 can satisfy the SLA requirements of the traffic, before routing the traffic onto tunnel 306. This process can also be repeated over time, to ensure that tunnel 306 still satisfies the SLA requirements of the traffic. If not, head-end router 302 may reroute the application traffic onto another tunnel that is expected to satisfy its SLA requirements.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
2. Claim(s) 6, 7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over nigam in view of Magadevan in view of Lin in view of Vasseur further in view of Morrill (US 20080049775 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 6, the system of Claim 2,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur do not teach where effecting the failover includes rebooting a malfunctioning node, deploying a standby node in place of the malfunctioning node or bypassing the malfunctioning node.
Morrill however in the same field of computer networking teaches where effecting the failover includes rebooting a malfunctioning node, deploying a standby node in place of the malfunctioning node or bypassing the malfunctioning node. (Morrill, [0394], If there is an access node experiencing failure in step 6706, the access nodes corrects the failure for the access node in step 6708 with the process terminating thereafter. In one example, if a problem or failure is detected in step 6706, the problem may be corrected manually or automatically by a network control center. For example, if there is a failure, the access point may send a correction message, alert, or alarm to the network control center so that the failing or problem node may be fixed with a software patch, reboot, maintenance order, replacement, or work-around.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of nigam to specify where effecting the failover includes rebooting a malfunctioning node, deploying a standby node in place of the malfunctioning node or bypassing the malfunctioning node as taught by Morrill. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to monitoring and optimizing performance on a packet network (Morrill, abstract).
Regarding claim(s) 7, the system of Claim 6,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where the bypassing the malfunctioning node includes transmitting the plurality of packets via a different network pathway that excludes the malfunctioning node. (Morrill, [0198] This same function enables geographical fail-over or call routing when network congestion or network failure significantly impairs the packet transmission path to a remotely deployed media gateway. In addition, predictive algorithms that trend performance information may recognize that a link is failing and systematically re-route traffic to an optimum link while managing the quantity and quality of the calls. [0281] A network element could include the PIP PM information in the appropriate ME domains, thereby allowing other NEs the ability to react to the degradation prior to link failure and assess real-time stability prior to restoring the link. A potential reaction could be to identify an alternative network operator or network segment, thereby routing around the portion of the network that is “flapping.”)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 10, the system of Claim 1,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where each initiating node of the plurality of initiating nodes and each receiving node of the plurality of receiving nodes in the network is in communication with a packet counting module. (Morrill, [0183], PIP packets may also provide information between two end devices even though a network element is located between the two end devices. That is, if the provider would want to see the overall “health” of the path between media gateway 1520 and media gateway 1516, the PIP packets can be configured to monitor this route even though the router 1506 is part of the routing of this path. Once collected, the raw information from these paths can be configured to show the overall health of the route.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 11, the system of Claim 10,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where the network monitoring system is on a single network node and is in communication with each packet counting module. (Morrill, [0183], PIP packets may also provide information between two end devices even though a network element is located between the two end devices. That is, if the provider would want to see the overall “health” of the path between media gateway 1520 and media gateway 1516, the PIP packets can be configured to monitor this route even though the router 1506 is part of the routing of this path. Once collected, the raw information from these paths can be configured to show the overall health of the route.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 12, the system of Claim 10,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where the plurality of receiving nodes are each operative to recognize each of the plurality of transmitted packets with a first identifier and in turn transmit a plurality of packets each with an acknowledgment receipt to a respective initiating node; (Morrill, [0154], a permission table is illustrated as Table 17 bO. Table 17B0 may include fields associated with an entity identifier 17 b 2, a segment identifier 17 b 4, and one or more network performance information identifiers 17 b 6. [0155], entity identifier 17 b 2 may be an identifier associated with an individual network participant, such as a subscriber, network operator, VPN provider, or other network participant. Alternatively, entity identifier 17 b 2 may be an identifier associated with a group or category of network participants 17 b 10. [0170], FIG. 21; at the second network communications device, a second data packet including the first network performance information received from the first network communications device and second network performance information generated at the second network communications device may be generated at step 2108. The second data packet including the first and second network performance information may be communicated from the second network communications device to a third network communications device at step 2110. [0328], that the sender network node buffers its own sent data until it receives acknowledgements (ACKs) for the sent data. The TCP Sliding Window 5002 size is typically determined by whatever is the smallest between the Receive Window and the sender's buffer.)
where the packet counting module at each initiating node counts packets with an acknowledgment receipt received at the initiating node and determines a network efficiency for each particular characteristic of the entities using the network. (Morrill, [0356], it may include a “settable counter trigger” that counts when a packet has a specific TOS, QoS, or other marking.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 13, the system of Claim 11,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where the network monitoring system further correlates data subsets relating to network efficiency with data subsets containing each particular characteristic to identify malfunctioning portions of the network. (Morrill, [0356], it may include a “settable counter trigger” that counts when a packet has a specific TOS, QoS, or other marking. [0308], other exemplary network performance information parameters that may be captured and inserted into the management stream include: near-end failures, far-end failures, last state transmitted (downstream and upstream), actual signal-to-noise ratio, maximum attainable data rate, actual power spectrum density, actual aggregate transmit power, xDSL profile, xDSL limit PSD mask and band-plan, xDSL Power Spectral Density mask estimated upstream power back-off electrical loop length, trellis code use, actual cyclic extension, band number, line attenuation per band, signal attenuation per band, signal-to-noise ratio margin per band, actual data rate (downstream and upstream), previous data rate (downstream and upstream), actual interleave delay (downstream and upstream), actual impulse noise protection, impulse noise protection report, actual size of Reed-Solomon codeword, actual number of Reed-Solomon redundancy bytes, actual number of bits per second, actual interleaving depth, actual interleaving block depth, actual latency path, interval number, interval status (valid and complete; invalid or incomplete), forward error correction seconds, errored seconds-line, severely errored seconds-line, loss of signal seconds-line, unavailable seconds-line, full initializations, failed full initializations, short initializations, failed short initializations, sync mode, or other capabilities identified in xDSL (e.g., ADSL1, ADSL2, ADSL2+, VDSL2, etc.).)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 14, the system of Claim 13,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where the correlating of data subsets related to network efficiency with data subsets containing each particular characteristic generates common pathways used by a portion of the plurality of packets in the system. (Morrill, [0106], network performance information may indicate buffer utilization levels, buffer overflows, errors experienced in caching or queuing data, latency introduced by a lack of processing, packet loss across a switching fabric of a particular network device such as a switch and router, or any other performance issue associated with a particular network device. [0161] FIG. 18 is a block diagram of exemplary multi-node packet networks 1800 a and 1800 b (collectively 1800) used to communicate data packets 1802 including PIP packets to convey network performance information generated by each node or network element 1804 a-1804 n (collectively 1804) in a transmission path. As shown, there are two packet networks 1800 a and 1800 b formed of multiple network elements or network communications devices 1804 that may form a network of one or more service providers.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 15, the system of Claim 14,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where the common pathways are each further investigated for malfunctioning nodes or links by transmitting packets directed by a routing table via these common pathways. (Morrill, [0198] This same function enables geographical fail-over or call routing when network congestion or network failure significantly impairs the packet transmission path to a remotely deployed media gateway. In addition, predictive algorithms that trend performance information may recognize that a link is failing and systematically re-route traffic to an optimum link while managing the quantity and quality of the calls. [0281] A network element could include the PIP PM information in the appropriate ME domains, thereby allowing other NEs the ability to react to the degradation prior to link failure and assess real-time stability prior to restoring the link. A potential reaction could be to identify an alternative network operator or network segment, thereby routing around the portion of the network that is “flapping.”)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 16, the system of Claim 1,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where each initiating node of the plurality of initiating node and each receiving node of the plurality of receiving nodes comprises one of a computer system, a private corporate network, a server, a router, a switch or a special or general-purpose relay device. (Morrill, [0106], network performance information may indicate buffer utilization levels, buffer overflows, errors experienced in caching or queuing data, latency introduced by a lack of processing, packet loss across a switching fabric of a particular network device such as a switch and router, or any other performance issue associated with a particular network device. [0161] FIG. 18 is a block diagram of exemplary multi-node packet networks 1800 a and 1800 b (collectively 1800) used to communicate data packets 1802 including PIP packets to convey network performance information generated by each node or network element 1804 a-1804 n (collectively 1804) in a transmission path. As shown, there are two packet networks 1800 a and 1800 b formed of multiple network elements or network communications devices 1804 that may form a network of one or more service providers.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 18, the method of Claim 17,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach further comprising correlating data subsets relating to network efficiency with data subsets containing each specific characteristic to identify a malfunctioning node within the network. (Morrill, [0394], the access node determines whether there is an access node experiencing failure in step 6706. The determination may be made based on the comparison of the network performance information to thresholds in step 6704.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 19, the method of Claim 18,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where effecting the failover includes rebooting the malfunctioning node, deploying a standby node in place of the malfunctioning node or bypassing the malfunctioning node. (Morrill, [0198] This same function enables geographical fail-over or call routing when network congestion or network failure significantly impairs the packet transmission path to a remotely deployed media gateway. In addition, predictive algorithms that trend performance information may recognize that a link is failing and systematically re-route traffic to an optimum link while managing the quantity and quality of the calls. [0281] A network element could include the PIP PM information in the appropriate ME domains, thereby allowing other NEs the ability to react to the degradation prior to link failure and assess real-time stability prior to restoring the link. A potential reaction could be to identify an alternative network operator or network segment, thereby routing around the portion of the network that is “flapping.”)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 20, the method of Claim 19,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Morrill teach where the bypassing the malfunctioning node includes transmitting the packet with a identifier via a different pathway that excludes the malfunctioning node. (Morrill, [0198] This same function enables geographical fail-over or call routing when network congestion or network failure significantly impairs the packet transmission path to a remotely deployed media gateway. In addition, predictive algorithms that trend performance information may recognize that a link is failing and systematically re-route traffic to an optimum link while managing the quantity and quality of the calls. [0281] A network element could include the PIP PM information in the appropriate ME domains, thereby allowing other NEs the ability to react to the degradation prior to link failure and assess real-time stability prior to restoring the link. A potential reaction could be to identify an alternative network operator or network segment, thereby routing around the portion of the network that is “flapping.”)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 6 applies here..
3. Claim(s) 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over nigam in view of Magadevan in view of Lin in view of Vasseur further in view of Glenn (US 20050083197A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4, the system of Claim 1,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur do not teach where the characteristics of the entities include any genus of human activity, any groupings of genus of human activity, any species of activity within a particular genus of human activity, any groupings of species of human activity.
Glenn however in the same field of computer networking teaches where the characteristics of the entities include any genus of human activity, any groupings of genus of human activity, any species of activity within a particular genus of human activity, any groupings of species of human activity. (Glenn, [0040], the invention will now be described with reference to the drawing figures, in which like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout. An embodiment in accordance with the present invention provides a method and apparatus that permits remote site monitoring regardless of the location of the device or activity desired to be monitored. [0041], FIG. 1 is an illustration of one embodiment in accordance with the present invention that details the overall configuration 10 of the preferred embodiment. A business or individual selects a device or activity that they desire to be monitored for a particular reason.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of nigam to specify where the characteristics of the entities include any genus of human activity, any groupings of genus of human activity, any species of activity within a particular genus of human activity, any groupings of species of human activity as taught by Glenn. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to monitor environmental conditions at a site with increased reliability and accuracy as well as the ability to access real-time data from a remote location (Glenn, [0001]).
Regarding claim(s) 5, system of Claim 1,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur-Glenn teach where human activity includes conducting business, arts, education and learning, entertainment, exercise and leisure, exploration, globalization, hobbies, industrialization, innovation, law enforcement, management, medicine, navigation, governance, publishing, recreation, religious activity, resource consumption, shopping, spending, sport, transportation, traveling, defense related activity, or a combination thereof. (Glenn, [0040], the invention will now be described with reference to the drawing figures, in which like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout. An embodiment in accordance with the present invention provides a method and apparatus that permits remote site monitoring regardless of the location of the device or activity desired to be monitored. [0041], FIG. 1 is an illustration of one embodiment in accordance with the present invention that details the overall configuration 10 of the preferred embodiment. A business or individual selects a device or activity that they desire to be monitored for a particular reason.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 4 applies here.
4. Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over nigam in view of Magadevan in view of Lin in view of Vasseur further in view of BAHADUR (US 20140362681 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 8, the system of Claim 6,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur do not teach where the deploying a standby node in place of the malfunctioning node includes synchronizing at least one of routing tables, session information, or firewall rules so that network efficiency is increased from the threshold towards a predetermined higher limit.
BAHADUR however in the same field of computer networking teaches where the deploying a standby node in place of the malfunctioning node includes synchronizing at least one of routing tables, session information, or firewall rules so that network efficiency is increased from the threshold towards a predetermined higher limit. (BAHADUR, [0003], these routers are configured for redundancy in a high availability deployment so that if the primary router fails, traffic will be routed through the alternate, or backup, router without incurring extra hops. [0006], the present invention describes a method for synchronized BGP and VRRP failover of network devices in a network, which can be used to selectively reroute BGP sessions from the primary router in a multi-router BGP implementation to the backup router. [examiner notes: synchronizing at least one of routing tables, session information, or firewall rules is a purpose to increase network efficiency from the threshold towards a predetermined higher limit.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Morrill to specify where the deploying a standby node in place of the malfunctioning node includes synchronizing at least one of routing tables, session information, or firewall rules so that network efficiency is increased from the threshold towards a predetermined higher limit as taught by Glenn. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to synchronize BGP and VRRP failover of network devices in a network, which can be used to selectively reroute BGP sessions from the primary router in a multi-router BGP implementation to the backup router (Glenn, [0006]).
Regarding claim(s) 9, the system of Claim 8,
nigam–Magadevan-Lin-Vasseur do not teach-BAHADUR teach where the standby node prior to the failover is synchronized with the malfunctioning node’s state and configuration to ensure a seamless transition. (BAHADUR, [0032], FIGS. 3-6 illustrate, using flowcharts, a preferred embodiment for configuring a router using the method of synchronized BGP and VRRP failover of the present invention. In FIGS. 3-6 it is assumed that the router being configured is desired to be the primary BGP router, and master virtual router on each interface configured for VRRP. [0033], If it is, the router is already not acting as primary, probably due to a prior failure event, so there is nothing further to do 34. On the other hand, if the second MED is not currently being advertised, then this is the first failure and a failover to the backup router is required. All failover-configured sessions are signaled to advertise the second MED 36, and all virtual routers are signaled to transition to ‘backup’ state 38.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 8 applies here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449