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 . 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.
Status of the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 01/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for this examination.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein, in response to determining the type of connectivity test
is service to service, the initiating the connectivity test comprises performing a decision tree test to determine the connectivity issue.” There is no specific mention of the word “type” previously. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or the parent claim. Examiner suggests the following amendment “wherein, in response to determining the .”
Claim 4 recites “further comprising performing, the connectivity test from a
service among a plurality of services on the source side.” There is no specific mention of “source side” previously. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or the parent claim. Examiner suggests the following amendment “further comprising performing, the connectivity test from a service among a plurality of services on [[the]] a source side.”
Claim 5 recites “further comprising performing, the connectivity test to a service
among a plurality of services on the destination side.” There is no specific mention of “destination side” previously. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or the parent claim. Examiner suggests the following amendment “further comprising performing, the connectivity test to a service among a plurality of services on [[the]] a destination side.”
Claim 6 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected parent claim 5.
As per claims 9, 11, 12 and 13 these are medium claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claims 2, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. As such, they are rejected using the same rationale as above.
As per claims 16, 18, 19 and 20 these are system claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claims 2, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. As such, they are rejected using the same rationale as above.
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, 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, 8 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (hereinafter Davis, Pub. No.: US 2022/0247653) in view of Boss et al. (hereinafter Boss, Pub. No.: US 2014/0376385) and further in view of Allen et al. (hereinafter Allen, Pub. No.: US 2014/0379894).
As per claim 1, Davis teaches,
A method for testing connectivity, comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices, a request for a connectivity test; (Davis Fig. 6A step 603 shows “deploy lightweight connectivity test component”. This means a request for a connectivity test.)
determining, by the one or more computing devices, whether a point-to-point connectivity test or a service-to-service connectivity test is to be performed; (Davis Fig. 6B step 613 shows “accessing a configuration file that defines connectivity types between the internal endpoints and external endpoints”. This shows determining connectivity test type. Davis recites in [0007] starting at line 4, “The lightweight connectivity test component may be configured with information pertaining to external
endpoints, run protocol-aware connectivity tests to each external endpoint, and provide the results as a comprehensive report of environment readiness.” This shows point-to-point connectivity test.)
initiating, by one or more computing devices, the connectivity test in response to the request and based on the determining, wherein initiating the connectivity test comprises invoking a connectivity testing mechanism; (Davis Fig. 6B steps 615 and 617 teach execution of the connectivity test and outputting test results. Step 615 recites “causing execution of the connectivity test component in the virtualized computing environment, prior to the installation of the user-specific applications”. Step 617 recites “receiving an output from the connectivity test component”.)
Davis teaches point-to-point connectivity testing. Davis does not explicitly teach, “displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a location of a connectivity issue based on the connectivity test;”. However, in analogous art of connectivity testing, Boss teaches,
displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a location of a connectivity issue based on the connectivity test; and (Boss recites in [0004] last sentence “The results are analyzed to determine one or more locations of network connectivity failure.” This shows that locations of the connectivity failure have been determined. Boss recites in [0037] “Display 440 provides a mechanism to display data to a user and may be, for example, a computer monitor, laptop screen or smart phone display.” This shows data is displayed. Since “locations of network connectivity failures” are data, these will be displayed on display 440.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Davis of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a location of a connectivity issue based on the connectivity test;” of Boss. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of identifying the location and cause of a connectivity failure so that a user can remedy the issue.
Davis and Boss teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly mention, “displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a next step to solve the connectivity issue based on the connectivity test.” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing Allen teaches,
displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a next step to solve the connectivity issue based on the connectivity test. (Allen recites in [0022] “Unlike typical monitoring solutions, connectivity manager 26 can provide results 150 directly to the user experiencing the connectivity issue. The determined root cause and
other information may be displayed on connectivity issue display 125. The results 150
provide guidance to the user on how to correct the connectivity issue. For example, results 150 may provide steps to correct the connectivity issue or inform the user that the connectivity issue should be addressed by an administrator or a call to the online service 105 should be made.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Davis and Boss of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “displaying, by the one or more computing devices, a next step to solve the connectivity issue based on the connectivity test.” of Allen. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of displaying a connectivity issue and will need help in resolving the issue.
As per claim 8, this is medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
As per claim 15, this is system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20 and are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Boss and Allen as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 in view of Klima et al. (hereinafter Klima, “A Testing Tool for IoT Systems Operating with Limited Network Connectivity”, 2021, arXiv).
As per claim 2, Davis, Boss and Allen teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein, in response to determining the type of connectivity test is service to service, the initiating the connectivity test comprises performing a decision tree test to determine the connectivity issue.” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing, Klima teaches,
wherein, in response to determining the type of connectivity test is service to service, the initiating the connectivity test comprises performing a decision tree test to determine the connectivity issue. (Klima Fig. 1 shows a model of a connectivity test where “functions” are services. Here test is a service-to-service test. This shows a decision tree.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Davis, Boss and Allen of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “wherein, in response to determining the type of connectivity test is service to service, the initiating the connectivity test comprises performing a decision tree test to determine the connectivity issue.” of Klima. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of service-to-service connectivity testing, when a service is needed to be performed from a distributed service provider.
As per claim 4, Boss teaches,
further comprising performing, the connectivity test from a service among a plurality of services on the source side. (Boss recites in [0012] bottom 10 lines, “In one example, an end user troubleshoot connectivity problems with the end user's device associated to a particular network resource by crowd sourcing multiple connectivity requests to other users or devices nearby. These neighboring devices can then perform localized connectivity tests, as well as remote node test(s) and return the test results back to the device associated with the end user or a central system to correlate results and narrow down a particular problem or source of connectivity loss.” This shows that localized connectivity tests are performed either local node, which is a source or a remote node which is destination.)
As per claim 5, Boss teaches,
further comprising performing, the connectivity test to a service among a plurality of services on the destination side. (Boss recites in [0012] bottom 10 lines, “In one example, an end user troubleshoot connectivity problems with the end user's device associated to a particular network resource by crowd sourcing multiple connectivity requests to other users or devices nearby. These neighboring devices can then perform localized connectivity tests, as well as remote node test(s) and return the test results back to the device associated with the end user or a central system to correlate results and narrow down a particular problem or source of connectivity loss.” This shows that localized connectivity tests are performed either local node, which is a source or a remote node which is destination.)
As per claim 6, Boss teaches,
wherein when the connectivity test fails and a connectivity issue is determined to exist, a plurality of parameters are determined based on details of the connectivity test and a second connectivity test is performed to narrow down the issue. (Boss recites in [0012] bottom 10 lines, “In one example, an end user troubleshoot connectivity problems with the end user's device associated
to a particular network resource by crowd sourcing multiple connectivity requests to other users or devices nearby. These neighboring devices can then perform localized
connectivity tests, as well as remote node test(s) and return the test results back to the device associated with the end user or a central system to correlate results and narrow
down a particular problem or source of connectivity loss.” This shows that localized connectivity tests are performed to narrow down the problem. A plurality of localized connectivity tests are performed.)
As per claim 9, 11, 12 and 13 these medium claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claims 2, 4, 5 and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
As per claim 16, 18, 19 and 20 these are system claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claim 2, 4, 5, and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Boss, Allen and Klima as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim, Pub. No.: WO/2018/097345).
As per claim 3, Davis, Boss, Allen and Klima teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein the next step to solve the connectivity issue is determined based on the decision tree test.” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing, Kim teaches,
wherein the next step to solve the connectivity issue is determined based on the decision tree test. (Kim teaches service connectivity tests. Kim recites in [9] “One embodiment of the present invention provides a distributed computing-based application object analysis method that can be variably allocated a service flow branch according to the test state of the application through at least one mobile terminal.” Please note that a service flow branch means the branch is chosen depending on a decision tree. When flow takes different branches, a particular branch is chosen depending on a condition of a decision tree. Kim recites in [50] “The application object analysis server 130 can be connected to the service flow monitor terminal 110 over the network and transmit the test results for the corresponding service flow branch that constitutes the test application target to the service flow monitor terminal 110. The application object analysis server 130 can perform an ADB (Android Debug Bridge) connection with the service flow monitor terminal 110.” Here Android Debug Bridge provides debugging capability including steps for debugging.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Davis, Boss, Allen and Klima of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “wherein the next step to solve the connectivity issue is determined based on the decision tree test.” of Kim. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of solving a connectivity issue is by testing the branch which causes the issue. The branch is decided by a decision tree.
As per claim 10, this is medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
As per claim 17, this is system claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a system.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Boss and Allen as applied to claims 1 and 8 in view of Balachandran et al. (hereinafter Balachandran, Patent No.: US 9,565,085).
As per claim 7, Davis, Boss and Allen teach connectivity testing. They do not explicitly teach “wherein the connectivity test is performed periodically.” However, in analogous art of connectivity testing, Balachandran teaches,
wherein the connectivity test is performed periodically. (Balachandra recites in column 4 starting bottom line “For example, tool 204 may monitor the wireless network connection for changes in wireless network connectivity by periodically running one
or more connectivity tests that test the ability of communication apparatus 206 to send and receive network traffic 226 using a default gateway, network address, DNS server, target host, and/or other components and/or attributes of wireless network 208.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Davis, Boss and Allen of connectivity testing by incorporating the teaching “wherein the connectivity test is performed periodically.” of Balachandran. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Balachandran of performing connectivity testing periodically to detect any issues quickly and fix the issues to keep the network functional.
As per claim 14, this is medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
References of Note
Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, Wei Mui can be reached on (571)272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
January 21, 2026