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Claims 1-4, 9-15 and 20 have been examined and claims 1, 5-12 and 16-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.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.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 7/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, applicant argues that:
Andreas fails to teach determine ... a scope with which to perform the test, wherein the scope comprises a minimal number of network devices selected from the plurality of network devices to perform the test, and much less that a selection of the minimal number of network devices to perform the test comprises: a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to have overlapping paths, a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to have a strong neighbor relationship and/or a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to provide a maximum coverage of virtual local area networks (VLANs) of a wireless local area network (WLAN).
In response to point (1), Examiner respectfully disagree. Andreas teaches determine... a minimal number of network devices selected...to perform the test. Andreas teaches two ways to test the MAX BW of S1-D link. The first way is to select a host A, B, C or D that could deliver 7GBits/s. If A, B or C is the source, data is deliver to D ([65][66]). The second way is when no source is available to deliver 7GBits/s, the test selects A, B, C and D to indirectly test the required 7Gbits/s on S1-D link ([66]-[68]). Andreas teaches determining the least amount of devices to test the S1-D link is 2 devices if source is possible/available. In other words, Andreas teaches determine ... a scope with which to perform the test, wherein the scope comprises a minimal number of network devices selected from the plurality of network devices to perform the test (e.g., determine a minimal number of devices (e.g., 2 devices as in the first way) to perform the test). Andreas further teach wherein a selection of the minimal number of the network devices to perform the test comprises at least one of a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to have overlapping paths (e.g., selection of A, B or C to deliver a 7Gbits/s traffic to host D comprises a selection of A, B, or C determined to have overlapping paths to deliver to D (e.g., A-S1-D, B-S1-D or C-S1-D), where S1-D is overlapping paths [66][67]), a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to have a strong neighbor relationship (e.g., e.g., selection of A, B or C to deliver a 7Gbits/s traffic to host D comprises a selection of A, B, or C determined to have strong neighbor relationship (e.g., A-S1-D, B-S1-D or C-S1-D) as shown in fig. 5 (e.g., connected neighbor with 2 hops or less)), a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to provide a maximum coverage of virtual local area network (VLANs) of a wireless local area network (WLAN), or a combination thereof
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood:
As per claim 1, line 14, it is unclear what is meant by strong neighbor relationship. For examination purpose, it is interpreted as connected neighbor with 2 or less network hops.
As per claims 12 (line 10) and 20 (line 12), they have the same issue as set forth in claim 1 above.
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:
one or more processors(fig. 5); and
memory comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the network management system to:
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 minimal number of 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), wherein a selection of the minimal number of the network devices to perform the test ([65]-[68], e.g., determine a minimal number of devices (e.g., 2 devices) to perform the test)) comprises at least one of a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to have overlapping paths (e.g., selection of A, B or C to deliver a 7Gbits/s traffic to host D comprises a selection of A, B, or C determined to have overlapping paths to deliver to D (e.g., A-S1-D, B-S1-D or C-S1-D), where S1-D is overlapping paths [66][67]), a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to have a strong neighbor relationship (e.g., e.g., selection of A, B or C to deliver a 7Gbits/s traffic to host D comprises a selection of A, B, or C determined to have strong neighbor relationship (e.g., A-S1-D, B-S1-D or C-S1-D) as shown in fig. 5 (e.g., connected neighbor with 2 hops or less)), a selection of a network device from among the plurality of network devices determined to provide a maximum coverage of virtual local area network (VLANs) of a wireless local area network (WLAN), or a combination thereof;
instruct, based on the network condition, the minimal number of 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 minimal number of 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 regard 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 instructions cause the network management system 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 minimal number of network devices to perform the test, the instruction cause the network management system to instruct the minimal number of 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 instructions cause the network management system 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 instructions cause the network management system 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 instructions further cause the network management system 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 instructions cause the network management system to perform at least one 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, automatically perform a corrective action to remedy or prevent the issue; or combination thereof [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 minimal number of network devices to perform the test, the instructions cause the network management system to send a message to the minimal number of network devices to perform the test, wherein the message comprises one or more of configuration information for the minimal number of network devices to perform the test, a schedule to perform the test, or vendor-specific information for the minimal number of 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set
forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to 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