DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on January 16, 2026 have been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-12 and cancelled claims 4, 5. Claims 1-3 and 6-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 16, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action dated September 16, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues regarding the combinability of Khanna with Raindel. Towards that,
Applicant argues, in pages 7-8 of the Remarks, “Raindel teaches away from pinging each IP address in a collection of IP addresses in a network in the monitoring and collecting of performance data in the
systems and methods for diagnosing network connectivity issues in data centers (e.g., determining if a
network issue exists and identifying a likely faulty link) disclosed in Raindel. Specifically, Raindel teaches
that sending probe packets (e.g., using a tool such as PingMesh) to monitor link status can create
unacceptable overhead and reducing the probing rate may leave temporal and special gaps in coverage.
See, Raindel, paragraph 55. In addition, probe traffic may not capture what the end user and network
flows observe. See, Raindel, paragraph 55. Accordingly, "by using data traffic as probe traffic, the system
introduces minimal monitoring overhead." See, Raindel, paragraph 55. As disclosed in Raindel, the
system can identify network path latencies by monitoring data traffic, for example, a TCP flow or a
RDMA (Remote Direct Memory Access) flow. See, Raindel, paragraphs 7, 9, 25, and 59. Therefore, there is no need or motivation for pinging IP address in a network in Raindel. In fact, pinging IP addresses would destroy the disclosed principles of the technology in Raindel, which is designed to determine path
latencies using data traffic rather than probe traffic to minimize monitoring overhead. As stated in MPEP
§2143, "if the proposed modification of combination of the prior art would change the principle of
operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious" (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810). Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 7, and 10 based on the combination of Raindel, Barone, and Khanna
(claims 1 and 7), and Raindel and Khanna (claim 10) is improper. Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 10 under 35 USC is respectfully requested”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant indicated, Raindel uses PingMesh
tool to send probe packets analogous to pinging to determine the performance of the network.
Therefore, Applicant’s allegation that pinging IP address would destroy the disclosed principles of the technology in Raindel is not persuasive. While Raindel’s PingMesh tool and probe packet imply that it
uses ping to gather performance metric, however, Raindel does not explicitly disclose
pinging plurality of IP address and rerouting. Khanna is applied to cure this deficiency. Raindel’s
invention is directed towards link fault isolation. Paragraph 0065 of Raindel hints rerouting due to lossy
link. Therefore, the PingMesh tool of Raindel can be used to pinging plurality of IP addresses and
rerouting to other available path if performance falls below a threshold.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raindel et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200145313), hereinafter, Raindel, in view of Barone et al. (US PGPUB No. 20030053655), hereinafter, Barone, and further in view of Khanna et al. (US PGPUB No. 20170155544), hereinafter, Khanna.
Regarding claim 1:
Raindel teaches:
A system comprising: a remote data center configured to broadcast a verification application simultaneously to a plurality of data centers, an electronic apparatus is one of the data centers, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises (Fig. 5 shows host (electronic apparatus) that execute the process of Fig. 6. Fig. 1 shows host/server in a data center 100. Paragraph 0086 discloses plurality of data centers):
an interface configured to [[electronically receive the verification application from the remote data center]] (Fig. 8 shows network interface 850);
a storage medium configured to store the verification application when the interface receives the verification application (Fig. 8 shows system memory 820); and
a processor configured to execute, when extracting the verification application from the storage medium, the verification application to cause the processor to (Fig. 8 shows processor 810):
[[ping each IP address in a collection of IP addresses in a network]],
determine, when the processor pings each of the IP addresses, whether or not performance in the network falls below a predetermined performance metric (paragraph 0075 discloses determining the round-trip latency of in network is degraded as stated “Operation 603 illustrates based on the round-trip latencies, determining, by the hosts, a presence of a faulty component on one of the network paths in the networked computing environment” . Paragraph 0115 discloses the determination is made when the round-trip latency exceed a threshold as stated “determining whether at least one of the round-trip latencies exceeds a threshold or exceeds characteristic latencies for connections to the same destination”),
initiate, when the processor determines the performance to fall below the predetermined performance metric, traceroute processing that reveals routes that a packet may traverse to reach a destination IP address (paragraph 0076 discloses initiating, when the round-trip latency is degraded, traceroute function to identify hops of network paths that a packet travers to destination as stated “Operation 605 illustrates in response to the determination, executing, by the hosts, traceroute functions to measure hop-to-hop latencies from the hosts to destinations, wherein the hop-to-hop latencies are measured for physical links that are traversed on the network paths.” ), and
Raindel does not teach electronically receive a verification application from a remote data center.
Barone teaches a remote data center configured to broadcast a verification application simultaneously to a plurality of data centers; electronically receive a verification application from a remote data center (paragraph 0028 discloses downloading monitoring application from server by plurality of computers) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Raindel to incorporate the teaching of Barone about downloading monitoring application. One would be motivated to that to monitor the network from the premises (see at least paragraph 0004 of Khanna).
Raindel does not teach ping each IP address in a collection of IP addresses in a network, reroute, when the processor initiates the traceroute processing, a flow of data traffic through the network to the destination IP address.
Khanna teaches ping each IP address in a collection of IP addresses in a network, reroute, when the processor initiates the traceroute processing, a flow of data traffic through the network to the destination IP address (paragraph 0027 discloses ping IP addresses and rerouting traffic when failure detected. Also see paragraph 0040 and claim 10 of Khanna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Raindel to incorporate the teaching of Khanna about ping IP addresses and rerouting traffic. One would be motivated to that to isolate the network component at issue and take remedial action (see at least paragraph 0006 of Khanna).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Barone and Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Raindel further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute, when extracting the verification application from the storage medium, the verification application to cause the processor to: obtain the collection of IP addresses for nodes, components and network functions in a geographic region (see at least Fig. 3 showing nodes).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Barone and Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Raindel further teaches wherein the nodes, components and network functions are each individually identifiable by a unique IP address (paragraph 0040 discloses the traceroute used ICMP ptotocol as stated “The traceroute function operates by causing each network device along a network path to return a message such as an ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) message”. Therefore, the entities are identified by IP address).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Barone and Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Raindel further teaches wherein the remote data center is configured to output, to the electronic apparatus, a start instruction that commands the electronic apparatus to execute the verification application (see at least paragraph 0026 discussing executing traceroute).
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 is directed towards a method performed by the electronic apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 is directed towards a method performed by the electronic apparatus of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 is directed towards a method performed by the electronic apparatus of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Barone and Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Raindel further teaches wherein the performance metric comprise one or more indicators representing communication performance of the network (paragraph 0075 discloses determining the round-trip latencies of in network).
Claim 18 is directed towards a method performed by the electronic apparatus of claim 16. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raindel, in view of Khanna.
Regarding claim 10:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
determine, in response to pinging each of the IP addresses, whether performance in the network falls below a predetermined performance metric (paragraph 0075 discloses determining the round-trip latency of in network is degraded as stated “Operation 603 illustrates based on the round-trip latencies, determining, by the hosts, a presence of a faulty component on one of the network paths in the networked computing environment” . Paragraph 0115 discloses the determination is made when the round-trip latency exceed a threshold as stated “determining whether at least one of the round-trip latencies exceeds a threshold or exceeds characteristic latencies for connections to the same destination”),
initiate, in response to determining that the performance falls below the predetermined performance metric, traceroute processing that identifies a sequence of hops in the network that packets may traverse to reach a destination IP address (paragraph 0076 discloses initiating, when the round-trip latency is degraded, traceroute function to identify hops of network paths that a packet travers to destination as stated “Operation 605 illustrates in response to the determination, executing, by the hosts, traceroute functions to measure hop-to-hop latencies from the hosts to destinations, wherein the hop-to-hop latencies are measured for physical links that are traversed on the network paths.”. Fig. 3 shows the sequence of hops ).
Raindel does not teach ping, in response to obtaining a collection of IP addresses, each of the IP addresses in the collection of IP addresses in a network; reroute, in response to identifying the sequence, a flow of the packets through the hops to the destination IP address.
Khanna teaches ping, in response to obtaining a collection of IP addresses, each of the IP addresses in the collection of IP addresses in a network; reroute, in response to identifying the sequence, a flow of the packets through the hops to the destination IP address (paragraph 0027 discloses ping IP addresses and rerouting traffic when failure detected. Obtaining the IP addresses is a priori necessity for pinging IP addresses. Also see paragraph 0040 and claim 10 of Khanna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Raindel to incorporate the teaching of Khanna about ping IP addresses and rerouting traffic. One would be motivated to that to isolate the network component at issue and take remedial action (see at least paragraph 0006 of Khanna).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Raindel further teaches determine, in response to pinging each of the IP addresses, whether the performance in the network falls below the predetermined performance metric (Paragraph 0115 discloses the determination is made when the round-trip latency exceed a threshold).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Raindel does not teach wherein a data center comprises the processor, the processor obtains the collection of the IP addresses from a storage medium in the data center.
Khanna teaches wherein a data center comprises the processor, the processor obtains the collection of the IP addresses from a storage medium in the data center (paragraph 0019 discloses a computing system 102 with data store 106 for storing network information. Paragraph 0018 disclose the computing system 102 as part of a data center ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Raindel to incorporate the teaching of Khanna about the data store 106 for storing network information. One would be motivated to that to ping nodes to isolate the network component at issue and take remedial action (see at least paragraph 0006 of Khanna).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Raindel does not teach wherein the destination IP address is one of the IP addresses.
Khanna teaches wherein the destination IP address is one of the IP addresses (paragraph 0027 discloses destination IP address).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Raindel to incorporate the teaching of Khanna about destination IP address. One would be motivated to that to ping destination to isolate the network component at issue and take remedial action (see at least paragraph 0006 of Khanna).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Raindel further teaches wherein the IP addresses correspond to nodes, components and network functions in a geographic region (see at least Fig. 3 showing nodes).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Raindel further teaches wherein the performance metric comprise one or more indicators representing communication performance of the network (paragraph 0075 discloses determining the round-trip latencies of in network).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raindel, in view of Khanna and further in view of Baker (US Patent No. 7035921), hereinafter, Baker.
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Raindel in view of Khanna teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Raindel does not teach ping, in response to rerouting the flow of the packets, each of the IP addresses in the network.
Baker teaches ping, in response to rerouting the flow of the packets, each of the IP addresses in the network (Col. 2, lines 18-26, discloses repeated ping as stated “The status of the server network is constantly monitored by the primary server by periodically "pinging" each of the servers in accordance with standard Internet Protocol (IP.) If a server becomes unavailable, the "down" status is recorded and future client requests for pages hosted by the down server are either immediately issued a user-friendly error message or are redirected to an alternate web page on the primary host server or on another available server.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Raindel to incorporate the teaching of Baker about repeated ping. One would be motivated to that to redirect requests to alternate server immediately (see at least Col. 2, lines 18-26, of Baker).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
February 27, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444