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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on April 21, 2026.
No Claims have been amended.
No Claims have been cancelled.
No Claims have been added.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 5 of the applicant’s arguments/remarks that Gupta fails to disclose, inter alia, "selecting a test node and a peer node for testing from candidate nodes, wherein the candidate nodes comprise nodes of a public network and nodes of a cellular network."
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown on fig. 1 and described on [0050] Gupta a plurality candidate node for testing such as nodes (10,11,16,18 and 19) these nodes are connected to at least one public network (7,12,22, etc.…) and a cellular network (4,6, etc.) . Gupta further discloses network devices 18 and nodes 10 configured as measurement points (e.g. with probe modules considered as testing agent) ([0061]-[0062]). Therefore, selecting as test node as claimed by the instant application . Gupta also teaches Computing devices configured with probe modules may send and/or receive test packets to compute one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the network, such as latency, delay (inter frame gap), jitter, packet loss, throughput, and the like. Probe modules may send test packets in accordance with various protocols([0061]-[0062]).
Based on the above disclosure and others Gupta discloses selecting a test node and a peer node for testing from candidate nodes, wherein the candidate nodes comprise nodes of a public network and nodes of a cellular network as claimed by the instant invention.
For at least the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive. The applicant argues that independent claims are patentable for similar reasons and are also not persuasive. The applicant further argues that since dependent claims depend on the argued independent claim; they are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies. Since the applicant's arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive, the applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are also not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gupta et al. (US Application 2024/0007342, hereinafter Gupta).
Regarding claims 1, 16,Gupta discloses a method (Figs. 1, 5) for performance testing connections between a public cloud (12,26,28) and a cellular node(16,11), the method comprising:
selecting a test node (18) and a peer node (10) for testing from candidate nodes (18,19,11,16), wherein the candidate nodes comprise nodes of a public network(12) and nodes of a cellular network(6)([0050],[0061], which recites subscriber devices 16 connect to network devices 18A-18B (collectively, “network devices 18”) via access network 6 to receive connectivity to subscriber services for applications hosted by public network 12 having a probe module considered s testing agent for testing nodes as claimed by the instant application );
establishing a connection between a testing agent on the test node and a peer testing agent on the peer node([0050],[0061]-[0062], which recites subscriber devices 16 connect to network devices 18A-18B (collectively, “network devices 18”) via access network 6 to receive connectivity to subscriber services for applications hosted by public network 12 having a probe module considered s testing agent for testing nodes as claimed by the instant application ); and
collecting Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a network path between the testing agent and the peer testing agent, wherein the network path between the test node and the peer node traverses a cloud network([0050], [0061]-[0062], which recites collecting performance statistics (e.g. KPIs) regarding network performance as claimed by the present application ).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the testing agent comprises a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) agent and the peer testing agent comprises a TWAMP agent([0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the key performance indicators comprise one, or more of a jitter, a latency, a Mean Opinion Score (MOS) ([0061]).
Regarding claim 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising deploying the testing agent on the test node([0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising deploying the peer testing agent on the peer node([0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising predicting a congestion for the network path for a period based on historical data, wherein the selecting selects the network path for the period of the congestion([0061], [0209]).
Regarding claim 7, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring the nodes of the cellular network for an error, and wherein the selecting selects one of the nodes of the cellular network reporting the error as the test node([0061], [0209]).
Regarding claim 8, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting is performed by a Networked Data Center([0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the test node is one of the nodes of the public network and the peer node is one of the nodes of the cellular network([0050], [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the test node is one of the nodes of a first segment and the peer node is one of the nodes of a second segment that is different than the first segment([0050], [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 11, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting selects one of the nodes of the public network as the test node and selects a Regional Data Center (RDC) node of the cellular network as the peer node, and the method further comprises checking, continuously, service level performance for the network path([0056],[0059]).
Regarding claim 12, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting selects one of the nodes of the public network as the test node and selects a Cell Site Router (CSR) node of the cellular network as the peer node, and the method further comprises checking, continuously, service level performance for the network path([0052],[0056],[0059],[0061]).
Regarding claim 13, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting selects a Cell Site Router as the test node and selects a Regional Data Center (RDC) node as the peer node, and the method further comprises checking, continuously, service level performance for the network path([0052],[0056],[0059],[0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising aggregating the KPIs for the network path([0050], [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Gupta discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising computing a MOS for the network path based on the KPIs([0050], [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Gupta discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the testing agent is a containerized application([0050], [0061]-[0062]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DADY CHERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1207. The examiner can normally be reached M to T, 8 am to 5pm.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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.
/DADY CHERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights