Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4, 9-15 and 20 have been examined and claims 1, 5-12 and 16-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 9-12 and 20 are generic claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 3/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, applicant argues that:
Andreas fails to teach selecting one or more network devices to perform a test based on at least one of overlapping paths of the network, neighbor relationships of the plurality of network devices, a mapping of wireless local area networks (WLANs) and virtual local area networks (VLANs) of the network, or a combination thereof as recited in amended claim 1.
In response to point (1), according to Applicant,
“[w]hile Andreas paragraphs [0065]-[0067] and [0084] describe scheduling tests on certain devices of selected paths, Andreas paragraphs [0065]-[0067] and [0084] do not describe or suggest that these devices are selected ‘based on at least one of overlapping paths of the network, neighbor relationships of the plurality of network devices, a mapping of wireless local area networks (WLANs) and virtual local area networks (VLANs) of the network, or a combination thereof,’ as recited in amended claim 1.”
(Remarks at 9-10) Examiner respectfully disagree. Andreas teaches a number of network devices selected from the plurality of network devices to perform the test (e.g., selecting devices A, B, C, D and S1 to perform the test; testing B-S1-D path, A-S1-D path, C-S1-D path [67]), the number of the one or more network devices selected based on at least one of overlapping paths of the network (e.g., overlapping network paths S1-D in B-S1-D path, A-S1-D path, C-S1-D path [67]), or neighbor relationship of the network devices (e.g., neighbor relationship as shown in fig. 5 of the network devices A, B, C, D, S1, S2, etc.) [65]-[68]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas et al, EP 2075953 (hereinafter Andreas) in view of Wang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0330047 (hereinafter Wang).
As per claim 1, Andreas teaches the invention substantially as claimed comprising:
a memory(fig. 5); and
one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to (fig. 5):
determine, based on data received from a plurality of network devices of a network, a network condition to perform a test, wherein the network condition comprises a time window to perform the test and a scope with which to perform the test, wherein the scope comprises a number of one or more network devices selected from the plurality of network devices to perform the test ([25][26][29][38][65]-[68][84], e.g., determine based on network traffic between network devices, a time period with low traffic and an identified number of the A, B, C, D, or S1 devices to perform a test), the number of the one or more network devices selected based on at least one of overlapping paths of the network, neighbor relationships of the plurality of network devices, a mapping of wireless local area networks (WLANs) to virtual local area networks (VLANs) of the network, or a combination thereof (e.g., selecting devices A, B, C, D and S1 to perform the test; testing B-S1-D path, A-S1-D path, C-S1-D path [67]; the number of the one or more network devices selected based on at least one of overlapping network paths S1-D in B-S1-D path, A-S1-D path, C-S1-D path [67], or neighbor relationship as shown in fig. 5 of the network devices A, B, C, D, S1, S2, etc.);
instruct, based on the network condition, the one or more network devices to perform the test ([38][44][55], e.g., instruct the test daemon running on each host to perform the tests);
identify, based on data obtained from the one or more network devices that performed the test, an issue of the network [2][55], e.g., identify the test results/possible problems based on the performed test).
Andreas is silent in regards to perform an action based on the identified issue. Wang teaches perform an action based on the identified issue ([36][41][43].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wang’s teaching with Andreas’s system in order to notify the user in Andreas’s system of the issue and recommended corrective actions, thus saving time and effort of the user in Andreas’s system [45].
As per claim 2, Andreas and Wang teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Andreas further teach wherein to determine the time window to perform the test, the one or more processors are configured to determine, based the data indicative of client activity associated with each of the plurality of network devices over a period of time, a lull period indicative of low client activity or no client activity to perform the test; and wherein to instruct the one or more network devices to perform the test, the one more processors are configured to instruct the one or more network devices to perform the test during the lull period. ([24][25][30]-[32], e.g., low activity period).
As per claim 3, Andreas and Wang teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 2 above. Andreas and Wang further teach wherein to determine the lull period, the one or more processors are configured to determine an average number of client devices actively connected to each of the plurality of network devices over the period of time (Andreas, [23]; Wang, [26]).
As per claim 4, Andreas and Wang teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 2 above. Andreas further teach wherein to determine the lull period, the one or more processors are configured to: determine a plurality of periods of time at which there is low client activity or no client activity; generate a score for each of the plurality of periods of time at which there is low client activity or no client activity; and select the lull period based on the score for each of the plurality of periods of time at which there is low client activity or no client activity ([39]).
As per claim 9, Andreas and Wang teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wang further teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: confirm a previously detected issue of the network with the identified issue of the network ([99]).
As per claim 10, Andreas and Wang teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wang further teach wherein to perform the action based on the identified issue, the one or more processors are configured to perform one or more of: send a notification to an administrator of the network indicating the issue, send one or more recommended actions to remedy or prevent the issue, or automatically perform a corrective action to remedy or prevent the issue [97].
As per claims 12 and 20, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above
As per claim 13, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
As per claim 15, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas and Wang in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 11, Andreas and Wang teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Andreas teaches wherein to instruct, based on the network condition, the one or more network devices to perform the test, the one or more processors are configured to send a message to the one or more network devices to perform the test, wherein the message comprises one or more of configuration information for the one or more network devices to perform the test, a schedule to perform the test, or vendor-specific information for the one or more network devices to operate with a vendor that provides the test ([2][25][26][29][38][44][55][84]), however, Andreas and Wang are silent in regards to wherein the test comprises a speed test. Official Notice is taken for the concept of speed test is well known and accepted in the art of network testing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include speed test because by doing so it would allow for accurate measurement of connection speed for identify performance issue in Andreas’s and Wang’s system
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights