DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 24 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 October 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not include a brief summary of the invention as per 37 CFR 1.73. See also MPEP § 608.01(d). If a summary was intentionally omitted, Applicant is requested to make a statement on the record confirming this omission.
Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a network” in line 4. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same network as previously recited with respect to the topology. The claim further recites “the user” in lines 8 and 11. However, because the claim previously recited plural users, it is not clear to which of the plural users this limitation is intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “the user” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer. The claim further recites “determined by using topological co-relation” in lines 2-3. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define what it means to use topological co-relation. The claim additionally recites “artificial intelligence and/or machine learning” in lines 3-4. The use of “and/or” makes this unclear as to which of AI and ML are required.
Claim 3 recites “the user” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer. The claim further recites “determined by using topological co-relation” in lines 2-3. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define what it means to use topological co-relation. The claim additionally recites “artificial intelligence and/or machine learning” in lines 3-4. The use of “and/or” makes this unclear as to which of AI and ML are required.
Claim 4 recites “the user” in lines 2 and 4. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “network connectivity and/or a performance degradation” in lines 3-4. The use of “and/or” makes this unclear as to which elements are required.
Claim 6 recites “the user” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer. The claim further uses “and/or” in line 4, which is not clear as to which elements are required.
Claim 7 recites “the user” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer.
Claim 9 recites “the user” in line 3. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer.
Claim 10 recites “a network” in line 3. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same network as previously recited with respect to the topology. The claim further recites “the user” in lines 7 and 10. However, because the claim previously recited plural users, it is not clear to which of the plural users this limitation is intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the user” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer. The claim further recites “determined by using topological co-relation” in lines 2-3. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define what it means to use topological co-relation. The claim additionally recites “artificial intelligence and/or machine learning” in lines 3-4. The use of “and/or” makes this unclear as to which of AI and ML are required.
Claim 12 recites “the user” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer. The claim further recites “determined by using topological co-relation” in lines 2-3. However, the claims and specification do not clearly define what it means to use topological co-relation. The claim additionally recites “artificial intelligence and/or machine learning” in lines 3-4. The use of “and/or” makes this unclear as to which of AI and ML are required.
Claim 14 recites “the user” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer. The claim further uses “and/or” in line 4, which is not clear as to which elements are required.
Claim 15 recites “the user” in lines 2 and 4. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “network connectivity and/or a performance degradation” in lines 3-4. The use of “and/or” makes this unclear as to which elements are required.
Claim 16 recites “the user” in line 2. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer.
Claim 18 recites “the user” in line 3. It is not clear to which of the plural users this is intended to refer.
Claim 19 recites “A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions” in lines 1-2. It is not clear whether the product is directed to the software instructions in themselves or if it is directed to the medium. The claim additionally recites “a network” in line 4. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same network as previously recited with respect to the topology. The claim further recites “the user” in lines 8 and 11. However, because the claim previously recited plural users, it is not clear to which of the plural users this limitation is intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber et al, US Patent Application Publication 2023/0011452, in view of Sinha et al, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0115463.
In reference to Claim 10, Barber discloses a method that includes deriving hop-by-hop metrics for a network topology and a plurality of events for a security service associated with network access to an application for users, where the topology is monitored dynamically (see paragraph 0140, metrics; paragraphs 0040 and 0050, topology; paragraph 0229, events); correlating the metrics and events on a plurality of dimensions to facilitate automatically determining a root cause of an issue associated with the network access based on the events (see paragraphs 0041-0042, correlation, and paragraph 0040); and performing a remediation response based on the root cause (paragraph 0032). However, Barber does not explicitly disclose that the security service is cloud-based.
Sinha discloses a method that includes deriving metrics and events for a cloud-based security service (see paragraphs 0079-0087, cloud based analyzer service collecting and analyzing metrics, noting paragraph 0086, cloud based service events; see also Figure 6 and paragraph 0076, distributed security cloud) as well as determining a cause of an issue with the network based on the events and performing a remediation response based on the cause (Figure 25, step 808, remedial actions based on identified issues; see also paragraphs 0105-0106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Barber to include the cloud-based security service of Sinha, in order to allow troubleshooting and performance analysis of cloud based services (see Sinha, paragraphs 0035, for example).
In reference to Claims 11 and 12, Barber and Sinha further disclose correlating a plurality of data sources across domains using machine learning or artificial intelligence (Barber, paragraphs 0041, 0133, 0217; see also Sinha, paragraph 0111) where the domains include network, authentication, DNS, SaaS or private app health, or security policy configuration (see Sinha, paragraph 0074, DNS, authentication; paragraph 0041, policies, restricted network domains; paragraph 0045, SaaS).
In reference to Claim 13, Barber and Sinha further disclose generating a human actionable verdict analysis that reduces mean time to detect and remediate issues (see Barber, paragraph 0229; see also Sinha, paragraph 0036).
In reference to Claim 14, Barber and Sinha further disclose identifying network issues including issues with infrastructure, customer networks, client connectivity, SaaS or private app health, or other connectivity or reachability or performance degradation issues (Barber, paragraph 0046; see also Sinha, paragraphs 0048 and 0079, client agent; paragraph 0045, SaaS; paragraphs 0005 and 0086, detecting performance degradation and bottlenecks).
In reference to Claim 15, Barber and Sinha further disclose an anomaly in network connectivity or degradation of performance associated with network access to the application (Barber, paragraphs 0043, 0046; see also Sinha, paragraphs 0005 and 0086).
In reference to Claim 16, Barber and Sinha further disclose discovering the topology (Barber, paragraphs 0040, 0050).
In reference to Claim 17, Barber and Sinha further disclose generating a security posture evaluation and a logical model (Barber, paragraphs 0043-0047).
In reference to Claim 18, Barber and Sinha further disclose using a natural language query interface (Barber, paragraph 0155).
Claims 1-9 are directed to systems having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 10-18, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 10, and is rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klotz et al, US Patent 7343524, discloses methods for analyzing commands and network topology with metrics.
Jorgensen et al, US Patent 8732302, discloses a method for monitoring application performance using network topology, events, correlation, and metrics.
Viswanathan et al, US Patent 9898357, discloses a system for monitoring and detecting root cause of issues using metrics and network topology.
Velipasaoglu et al, US Patent 10261851, discloses a system for anomaly detection based on spatial topology.
Wang et al, US Patent 12021722, discloses detecting anomalies indicating issues in network topology.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492