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 .
Claims 1-23 are pending in the application.
Claim 23 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 22, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, the invention, as claimed, covers a software embodiment. Applicant is seeking to patent a system comprising an “intent template” and a “backend decoding service.” The claim does not specify that the “intent template” and “backend decoding service” include hardware structure, and the meanings of the terms do not convey requirement of hardware structure. Applicant’s specification, on paragraph [0049], states that functional blocks may be realized by “software components” and that “software elements of the present disclosure may be implemented with any programming or scripting languages.” Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the “intent template” and “backend decoding service” may be implemented as software, and in the absence of hardware, the system may be directed to software. An invention directed to software is considered as non-statutory subject matter as software does not meet one of the four categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03.
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 7-8, 11-22 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is not clear which intent “the intent” is referring to since claim 1 recites, “executing intents.”
Regarding claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the devices of an application path” since the claims do not identify any devices in an application path. Furthermore, claim 7 depends on claim 2, which recites, “qualifying devices” and “the defined devices.” It is not clear whether “the devices” is referring to one of the previous cited “devices.”
Regarding claim 8, the claim comprises the contingent limitation, “cloning the intent for the neighbor devices if the intent includes the diagnosis across the devices.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04. The claim does not require the condition, “if the intent to include the diagnosis across the devices” to be met, and as such, the step of “cloning the intent for the neighbor devices” is not required. As such, the claim does not further limit claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intent,” “the neighbor devices” and “the diagnosis.” Regarding “the intent,” claim 1 recites, “executing intents,” and it is not clear which particular intent is being referred to by “the intent.” Regarding “the neighbor devices,” the claims do not identify any neighbor devices. Regarding “the diagnosis,” the claims do not identify any particular diagnosis.
Regarding claim 8, it is not clear which devices “the devices” is referring to because claim 2 recites, “qualifying devices” and “the defined devices.” Claim 8 recites, “neighbor devices.”
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “in the map displaying the decoded intents and their qualified map devices.” While claim 1 recites “a map,” the claim does not specify any decoded intents nor a map displaying decoded intents.
Regarding claim 10, it is not clear which devices “their” is referring to in “their qualified map devices.”
Regarding claim 11, it is not clear which intent “the intent” is referring in the claim. While claim 11 recites “an intent,” claim 1 also recites “intents.” As such, “the intent” is not limited to the intent of claim 11.
Regarding claim 11, it is not clear which devices “these” is referring to in “these devices.”
Regarding claim 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intent results.”
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites in part, a “system comprising: … creating and executing intents for the qualified devices in a map.” It is not clear how the system comprises “creating and executing.” It is not clear what structure, if any, is being claimed by steps of “creating and executing intents.”
Regarding claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “The method of claim 12.” Claim 12 is directed to a system.
Regarding claim 17, it is not clear which intent “the intent” is referring to since claim 12 recites, “executing intents.”
Regarding claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the devices of an application path” since the claims do not identify any devices in an application path. Furthermore, claim 17 depends on claim 12, which also recites, “qualify devices” and “the qualified devices.” It is not clear whether “the devices” is referring to one of the previous cited “devices.”
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “The method of claim 12.” Claim 12 is directed to a system.
Regarding claim 18, the claim comprises the contingent limitation, “cloning the intent for the neighbor devices if the intent includes the diagnosis across the devices.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04. The claim does not require the condition, “intent to include the diagnosis across the devices” to be met, and as such, the step of “cloning the intent for the neighbor devices” is not required. As such, the claim does not further limit claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intent,” “the neighbor devices” and “the diagnosis.” Regarding “the intent,” claim 12 recites, “executing intents,” and it is not clear which particular intent is being referred to by “the intent.” Regarding “the neighbor devices,” the claims do not identify any neighbor devices. Regarding “the diagnosis,” the claims do not identify any particular diagnosis.
Regarding claim 18, it is not clear which devices “the devices” is referring to because claim 12, recites, “qualify devices” and “the qualified devices.” Claim 18 recites, “neighbor devices.”
Regarding claim 21, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the map displaying the decoded intents and qualified map devices.” Claim 12 broadly recites “a map.” Claims 12 and 21 do not specify any decoded intents nor a map displaying decoded intents.
Regarding claim 22, it is not clear which intent “the intent” is referring in the claim. While claim 22 recites “an intent,” claim 1 also recites “intents.” As such, “the intent” is not limited to the intent of claim 22.
Regarding claim 22, it is not clear which devices “these” is referring to in “these devices.” The claim does not distinctly claim the invention.
Regarding claim 22, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intent results.”
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, 10-12, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backes et al. US Patent Publication No. 2025/0175387 (“Backes”) in view of Gao et al. US Patent Publication No. 2015/0156077 (“Gao”).
Regarding claim 1, Backes teaches a method for network intent replication, the method comprising:
defining an intent template comprising criteria for qualifying devices (para. [0022] intent catalog may include types or templates of intents. para. [0018] Intents may include a functional expectation…, which may be ultimately implemented by network operations such as routing, filtering, and/or other actions performed by network devices);
enabling a backend decoding service for the qualifying devices compared with the intent template (para. [0020] determine or map entities to which the intents refer or apply. para. [0035] determining one or more entities associated with the intent. entities that are a subject of an intent may be defined by a network entity system); and
creating and executing intents for the qualified devices (para. [0035] propagating device configurations to devices associated with the determined entity or entities to control the devices to comply with the intent).
Backes does not teach updating baseline data based on the backend decoding service; and
Backes teaches creating and executing intents for the qualified devices but not in a map.
Gao discloses updating baseline data based on execution of a network command; and creating and executing commands for the devices in a map (para. [0071] Executable Procedure 107 can be executed within a network map 101. in a common scenario, a user creates network map 101 to include network devices and/or network interfaces relevant to a network task, and then selects the relevant Procedures to run within network map 101. para. [0154] from the recursively obtained result (e.g., obtained in response to the recursive execution of the network command) and recursively update the variable storing the retrieved information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes by applying Gao’s disclosure of updating baseline data and execution of commands in a map such that the intents are created and executed in a map such that the intents of Backes are created and executed for devices in a map and baseline data is updated. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing a graphical user interface for creating a map to execute procedures and automate network management tasks, such as monitoring and troubleshooting (para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Backes teaches a system comprising:
an intent template configured to qualify devices (para. [0022] intent catalog may include types or templates of intents. para. [0018] Intents may include a functional expectation…, which may be ultimately implemented by network operations such as routing, filtering, and/or other actions performed by network devices);
a backend decoding service configured to qualify the devices based on the intent template (para. [0020] determine or map entities to which the intents refer or apply. para. [0035] determining one or more entities associated with the intent. entities that are a subject of an intent may be defined by a network entity system); and
creating and executing intents for the qualified devices (para. [0035] propagating device configurations to devices associated with the determined entity or entities to control the devices to comply with the intent).
Backes does not teach updating baseline data.
Backes teaches creating and executing intents for the qualified devices but not in a map.
Gao discloses updating baseline data based on execution of a network command; and creating and executing commands for the devices in a map (para. [0071] Executable Procedure 107 can be executed within a network map 101. in a common scenario, a user creates network map 101 to include network devices and/or network interfaces relevant to a network task, and then selects the relevant Procedures to run within network map 101. para. [0154] from the recursively obtained result (e.g., obtained in response to the recursive execution of the network command) and recursively update the variable storing the retrieved information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes by applying Gao’s disclosure of updating baseline data and execution of commands in a map such that the intents are created and executed in a map such that the intents of Backes are created and executed for devices in a map and baseline data is updated. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing a graphical user interface for creating a map to execute procedures and automate network management tasks, such as monitoring and troubleshooting (para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 10, Backes does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a map pane in the map displaying the decoded intents and their qualified map devices.
Gao discloses providing a map pane in a map displaying procedures and their qualified map devices (para. [0101] Procedures are listed in Pane 701. para. [0102] network devices on which the Procedures are executed are listed in Pane 713). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes by applying Gao’s disclosure of providing a map pane in a map displaying procedures and devices such that a map pane is provided in map displaying intents and associated devices as disclosed by Backes. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a graphical user interface for displaying data regarding execution of procedure, in this case intents, and results of the procedures.
Regarding claim 11, Backes in view of Gao teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting an intent and a subset of qualified map devices, cloning the intent for these devices, executing the cloned intent, and displaying the intent results in the map (Backes: para. [0018] intent catalog 102 includes a database or other data construct configured to store intents or intent data usable to generate network intents for the network. para. [0035] propagating device configurations to devices associated with the determined entity or entities to control the devices to comply with the intent). Backes does not teach displaying the intent results in the map
Gao discloses displaying results of a procedure in a map (para. [0101] Procedure Task window 700 to display Procedure results. Details of a selected message are displayed in Pane 705. execution log for the whole Procedure Task can also be displayed in Pane 705. execution log displays the details of how the Procedures are executed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes by applying Gao’s disclosure of displaying results in a map. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a graphical user interface for displaying data regarding execution of procedure, in this case intents, and results of the procedures.
Regarding claim 19, Backes in view of Gao teach the system of claim 12, further comprising: a network intent that is cloned for the devices that qualify or for other devices users add (Backes: para. [0018] intent catalog 102 includes a database or other data construct configured to store intents or intent data usable to generate network intents for the network. para. [0020] determine or map entities to which the intents refer or apply. para. [0035] determining one or more entities associated with the intent. entities that are a subject of an intent may be defined by a network entity system).
Regarding claim 20, Backes in view of Gao teach the system of claim 12, further comprising: a cloned network intent (NI) for a device (Backes: para. [0018] intent catalog 102 includes a database or other data construct configured to store intents or intent data usable to generate network intents for the network.) but not when critical variables are retrieved and parsed successfully.
Gao discloses cloning a procedure for a device when critical variables are retrieved and parsed successfully (para. [0154] parser may retrieve information from the recursively obtained result (e.g., obtained in response to the recursive execution of the network command) and recursively update the variable storing the retrieved information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes by applying Gao’s disclosure such that the intent of Backes is cloned when critical variables are retrieved and parsed successfully. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing capability for recursive execution of intents.
Regarding claim 21, Backes does not teach the system of claim 12, further comprising: a map pane in the map displaying the decoded intents and qualified map devices.
Gao discloses providing a map pane in a map displaying procedures and their qualified map devices (para. [0101] Procedures are listed in Pane 701. para. [0102] network devices on which the Procedures are executed are listed in Pane 713). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes by applying Gao’s disclosure of providing a map pane in a map displaying procedures and devices such that a map pane is provided in map displaying intents and associated devices as disclosed by Backes. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a graphical user interface for displaying data regarding execution of procedure, in this case intents, and results of the procedures.
Regarding claim 22, Backes in view of Gao teach the system of claim 21, wherein an intent and a subset of qualified map devices is selected, and the intent for these devices is cloned and executing. Backes does not teach the system further wherein the intent results are displayed in the map.
Gao discloses displaying results of a procedure in a map (para. [0101] Procedure Task window 700 to display Procedure results. details of a selected message are displayed in Pane 705. execution log for the whole Procedure Task can also be displayed in Pane 705. execution log displays the details of how the Procedures are executed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes by applying Gao’s disclosure of displaying results in a map. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a graphical user interface for displaying data regarding execution of procedure, in this case intents, and results of the procedures.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backes in view of Gao, and Anand et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0014036 (“Anand”).
Regarding claim 17, Backes in view of Gao teach the method of claim 12, further comprising: cloning the intent for the devices (Backes: para. [0018] intent catalog 102 includes a database or other data construct configured to store intents or intent data usable to generate network intents for the network. para. [0035] propagating device configurations to devices associated with the determined entity or entities to control the devices to comply with the intent) but not devices of an application path.
Anand discloses intent for devices of an application path (para. [0030] FlowTrace intent is received at a device… along the network path 206 (or 208), intent may indicate a request for flow tracing information. uniquely identify nodes (devices), links, paths, services and ports, among other things, along a network path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes with Anand’s disclosure of intent for devices on an application path. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to have utilized additional tools for networking monitoring and performance analysis.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backes in view of Gao, and Catalano et al. US Patent Publication No. 2025/0077333 (“Catalano”).
Regarding claim 18, Backes does not teach the method of claim 12, further comprising: cloning the intent for the neighbor devices if the intent includes the diagnosis across the devices
Catalano discloses cloning a command for the neighbor devices if the intent includes the diagnosis across the devices (para. [0077] receiving network device initiates the triggering of diagnostic port activation by sending the command to one or more other network devices of the identified port(s)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Backes with Catalano’s disclosure of cloning a command for the neighbor devices and command includes diagnosis across devices such that the intent of Backes is cloned for neighbor devices and comprises diagnosis across devices. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so because Backes is directed to management of a network, ant it would have been beneficial to provide the capability to perform diagnostics on network devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kumar Saha et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0177710 (para. [0223] network intent. para. [0227] intent at the root of the path (or sub-path) is most likely the target intent. para. [0277] command may be generated in accordance with the determined intent. para. [0278] command generation system 30 or IBN may update a data set that specifies the determined intents, the executed commands and/or the network state obtained in response to execution of the commands)
Fourie et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0241436 (para. [0028] GUI 108 provides a graphical interface for interaction by a user to construct Intents, service chains and related elements para. [0029] client gateway/CLI 106 and GUI 108 each permit a user to enter queries and commands, and then sends those queries or commands to the Intent API 116 to, for example, manage, create, update or access Intents through the Intent engine 120. configuration interface 110 provides a user or administrator with an interface for configuration of the Intent engine 120 or other elements of the Intent server 102. para. [0030] Intent Engine 120 handles decoding of Intents…, and translating the Intents and their associated CEDs and FEDS into networking commands that can be applied to networking components in the network infrastructure 140. Intent may specificy a source endpoint, a destination endpoint and an associated service)
Wang et al. US Patent Publication No. 2023/0354105 (para. [0013] when requirements of the entire network are described based on the intent model, the terminal device may be classified … para. [0063] network resources of the infrastructure. para. [0067] device resources. whether processing capabilities of processing boards in the infrastructure network meet a requirement needs to be evaluated and reserved. independent physical resources. para. [0079] intent model… used to classify and describe customer requirements. para. [0096] based on the intent model…, a network resource request method. para. [0104] properly allocate the network resources. para. [0109] whether a processing capability of a processing board meets a requirement needs to be evaluated and reserved). para. [0110] modules of the EMS coordinate with each other to deploy, based on the requirements, the 2B network requested in a network intent).
Gopalakrishnan et al. US Patent Publication No. 2008/0080438 (para. [0029] for commands intended to be executed on multiple nodes 110 within cluster 109, such commands may be duplicated).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm EST.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights