DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,405,302 B1 (hereinafter “Liu”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0357692 A1 (hereinafter “Traut”).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 20: Liu teaches a method for providing a network test environment with mismatch mediation functionality, the method comprising: at a test system implemented using at least one processor:
configuring a first test bed element (TBE) and a second TBE for performing one or more functions in a test environment, wherein the first TBE and the second TBE have different fidelities and at least one performance or capability mismatch (see, e.g., figure 3, 3:2, 3:12-24, 6:37-53, 8:58-64, 9:12-21, 12:25-33; CTI(s) and/or CTIE(s) are configured and have different capabilities); and
performing, during a test session involving the test environment, [including] receiving at least one ingress packet stream of packets from the first TBE and/or the second TBE, and providing at least one egress packet stream of packets (see, e.g., figure 3, 5:55-61; 9:63-10:7; testing involves traffic generation).
Liu does not explicitly state “configuring, using mediation interworking rules and information about the first TBE and the second TBE, a mediation interworking element (MIWE) for mediating the at least one performance or capability mismatch,” nor “performing the at least one mediation action using the ingress packet stream of packets, and providing at least one egress packet stream of packets associated with the at least one mediation action.” However, Traut teaches these features (see, e.g., [0003], [0009], [0020]-[0029]; rules and information from respective systems/datasets are used to provide a mediating action, e.g. via an interleaving protocol). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Traut, such as the intervening and/or adjustment functionality, within the system of Liu, in order to save time and costs associated with testing using variable system inputs.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the system and medium of claims 10 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 11: Liu modified by Traut further teaches obtaining test results associated with the test session; analyzing test results associated with the test session; generating feedback information for adjusting the mediation interworking rules used in selecting the MIWE or for adjusting the MIWE; adjusting the mediation interworking rules or the MIWE, wherein adjusting the mediation interworking rules or the MIWE includes changing the mediation interworking rules to select a different MIWE or to select a different configuration of the MIWE for mediating the at least one performance or capability mismatch; initiating a second test session involving the test environment; and obtaining test results associated with the second test session for use in further tuning (see, e.g., Liu figure 3, 1:57-59, 6:26-44; results are dynamically obtained and analyzed; and/or Traut [0003], [0007]-[0009], [0055]-[0056; ongoing results are received and analyzed for training/tuning). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the system a of claim 11.
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Liu modified by Traut further teaches wherein the MIWE is implemented by the test system, a hardware device, a traffic generator, a programmable switching application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), an ASIC, software, or an emulation platform (see, e.g., Liu figure 3, 5:55-61, 6:40-65, 7:1-16, 8:25-38; and/or Traut [0025], [0052]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the system of claim 13.
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Liu modified by Traut further teaches wherein the MIWE is configured for adjusting packet throughput, link bandwidth, one-way latency, round-trip latency, cross- device latency, queue depth, memory size, processor speed, an ingress packet rate, or an egress packet rate (see, e.g., Traut [0003], [0009], [0020]-[0029]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 4 is applicable to the system of claim 14.
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Liu modified by Traut further teaches wherein configuring the MIWE includes configuring the MIWE to process or ignore a subset of traversing packets based on one or more observable characteristics (see, e.g., Traut [0003], [0009], [0020]-[0029]; rules and information from respective systems/datasets are used to provide a mediating action, e.g. via an interleaving protocol). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 5 is applicable to the system of claim 15.
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Liu modified by Traut further teaches wherein the first TBE is a non-emulated TBE and the second TBE is a hardware-based emulated TBE; wherein the first TBE is a non-emulated TBE and the second TBE is a software-based emulated TBE; or wherein the first TBE is a hardware-based emulated TBE and the second TBE is a software-based emulated TBE (see, e.g., Liu 3:10-35).
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 8 is applicable to the system of claim 18.
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Liu modified by Traut further teaches wherein the first TBE includes an emulated or non-emulated version of a gateway, a load balancer, a mobile device, an internet of things (lot) device, a firewall, a network endpoint, an electronic design automation (EDA) emulator proxy, a zero trust authentication node, a policy enforcement point, a network switch, a router, a smartswitch, a traffic generator, a network element, a server, an application server, a processing offload or accelerator device, a machine learning processor, a data center element, an openradio access network (O-RAN) element, a core network element, a fifth generation (5G) core network element, a sixth generation (6G) core network element, a 5G radio access network element, or a 6G radio access network element (see, e.g., Liu 3:10-35).
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 9 is applicable to the system of claim 19.
Regarding claim 12: Liu modified by Traut further teaches wherein the test system includes or utilizes a MIWE tuner or an artificial intelligence (AI) model for adjusting configuration settings and/or operational parameters of the MIWE based on feedback information (see, e.g., Liu figure 3, 1:57-59, 6:26-44; results are dynamically obtained and analyzed; and/or Traut [0003], [0007]-[0009], [0055]-[0056]; ongoing results are received and analyzed for training/tuning). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 10 is applicable to claim 12.
7. Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Traut, and alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0224183 A1 (hereinafter “Pean”) or U.S. Publication No. 2022/0237099 A1 (hereinafter “Shiraishi”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Liu modified by Traut further teaches processing packets associated with TBEs, as well as dynamically modifying (i.e. increasing and/or decreasing) packets associated with TBEs (see, e.g., Liu figure 3, 3:2, 3:12-24, 6:37-53, 8:58-64; and/or Traut [0020], [0021]), but does explicitly state the feature wherein a packet to the second TBE is “corresponding.” Therefore, Liu modified by Traut does not explicitly state “wherein the MIWE includes a packet reduction function for processing a first ingress packet stream from the first TBE and decreasing the number of packets of a corresponding egress packet stream sent to the second TBE.”
To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Liu modified by Traut (by virtue of the respective dynamic adjustments), this feature is nevertheless taught by Pean (see, e.g., figures 1 and 2, [0069], [0082], [0119]-[0121]; network emulation for testing considers outputs from one virtual network as inputs to a second virtual network; thus a “corresponding” packet is sent to a second emulation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Pean, such as the emulation functionality, within the system of Liu modified by Traut, in order to more accurately emulate real-world networks for system testing.
Alternatively, the said feature is taught by Shiraishi (see, e.g., figure 1, [0044], [0068]; note virtual network dependency/interaction). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Shiraishi, such as the network analysis functionality, within the system of Liu modified by Traut, in order to correlate data for system testing or analysis.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 6 is applicable to the system a of claim 16.
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Liu modified by Traut further teaches processing packets associated with TBEs, as well as dynamically modifying (i.e. increasing and/or decreasing) packets associated with TBEs (see, e.g., Liu figure 3, 3:2, 3:12-24, 6:37-53, 8:58-64; and/or Traut [0020], [0021]), but does explicitly state wherein a packet to the second TBE is “corresponding.” Therefore, Liu modified by Traut does not explicitly state “wherein the MIWE includes a packet amplification function for processing a first ingress packet stream from the first TBE and increasing the number of packets of a corresponding egress packet stream sent to the second TBE.”
To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Liu modified by Traut (by virtue of the respective dynamic adjustments), this feature is nevertheless taught by Pean (see, e.g., figures 1 and 2, [0069], [0082], [0119]-[0121]; network emulation for testing considers outputs from one virtual network as inputs to a second virtual network; thus a “corresponding” packet is sent to a second emulation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Pean, such as the emulation functionality, within the system of Liu modified by Traut, in order to more accurately emulate real-world networks for system testing.
Alternatively, the said feature is taught by Shiraishi (see, e.g., figure 1, [0044], [0068]; note virtual network dependency/interaction). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Shiraishi, such as the network analysis functionality, within the system of Liu modified by Traut, in order to correlate data for system testing or analysis.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 7 is applicable to the system a of claim 17.
Relevant Art
8. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476