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 .
Claims 1-19 are subject under examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 10469331 B2 because they are obvious variant.
Instant Application 18587067
Patent (US 10469331 B2)
A method of analyzing data on network traffic in a network having a plurality of
computing devices coupled to a network traffic appliance that routes data to and from the computing devices, the method comprising:
installing a plug-in network traffic analysis module on a network traffic recommendation engine running the network traffic analysis module to obtain selected network traffic data on the network;
analyzing the selected network traffic data via the network traffic analysis module;
outputting a recommendation based on the selected network traffic data; and adjusting a policy based on the recommendation to improve the efficiency of the sending and receiving of network traffic to the plurality of computing devices.
Applicant deleted “correlating the network traffic data from a plurality of systems included in the network to extend a universe of data analysis of the selected network traffic data ; ….wherein: during operation the module manager manages the plug-in network traffic analysis modules, wherein managing the plug-in network traffic analysis modules includes determining which network traffic analysis modules the traffic management appliance executes, determining when to execute the network traffic analysis modules, and storing network traffic analysis modules configuration information; the module manager and the plurality of plug-in network traffic analysis modules are distinct from policies that manage network traffic; the traffic management appliance includes one or more application program interfaces (APIs) to provide access to and from the plug-in network analysis modules; and the recommendation analysis engine has a plug-in architecture to provide the plurality of plug-in network analysis modules access to data from one or more systems via the APIs” to broaden the claim.
A computer-implemented method of analyzing data on network traffic in a network having a plurality of computing devices coupled to a traffic management appliance that routes network traffic data to and from the computing devices, the method comprising:
executing one or more commands via a network traffic recommendation engine to install a module manager and a plurality of plug-in network traffic analysis modules on a network traffic recommendation analysis engine of a traffic management appliance
running the plurality of plug-in network traffic analysis modules to obtain selected network traffic data on the network;
analyzing the selected network traffic data via the network traffic analysis module;
outputting a recommendation based on the selected network traffic data; and adjusting a policy based on the recommendation to improve an efficiency of sending and receiving of the network traffic data to the plurality of computing devices.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is one of an improved configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is one of an improved configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the recommendation to a user.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the recommendation to a user.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis module correlates data froma plurality of systems including the network to extend the universe of data analysis.
Claim 1, correlating the network traffic data from a plurality of systems included in the network to extend a universe of data analysis.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis module is one of a plurality of network traffic analysis modules installed on the network traffic recommendation engine, each
of the network traffic analysis modules obtaining selected network traffic data from the network and outputting a recommendation.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis module is one of a plurality of network traffic analysis modules installed on the network traffic recommendation engine, each of the network traffic analysis modules obtaining selected network traffic data from the network and outputting a recommendation.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising a scheduling manager for selecting one or more network traffic analysis modules to be executed before another network traffic analysis
module based on the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis modules.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising a scheduling manager for selecting one or more network traffic analysis modules to be executed before another network traffic analysis module based on the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis modules.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective network traffic analysis module.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective network traffic analysis module.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis module interfaces with a database via a data interface API.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the network traffic analysis module interfaces with a database via a data interface API
9. A system for analysis of network traffic data, the system comprising:
a network having a plurality of network devices exchanging data;
a network traffic management system coupled to the network for managing data traffic on the network; and
a network traffic recommendation engine including a plug-in network data traffic
analysis module, the network data traffic analysis module:
obtaining selected network traffic data on the network; analyzing the selected network traffic data;
and outputting a recommendation based on the selected network traffic data.
Applicant deleted “wherein: the network traffic management appliance includes a network traffic recommendation analysis engine; the recommendation analysis engine includes an (i) installed plurality of plug-in network traffic analysis modules and (ii) a module manager to manage the plug-in network traffic analysis modules, wherein to manage the plug-in network traffic analysis modules includes to determine which network traffic analysis modules the traffic management appliance executes, to determine when to execute the network traffic analysis modules, and to store network traffic analysis modules configuration information; the module manager and plurality of plug-in network traffic analysis modules collect network data are distinct from policies that manage network traffic; the traffic management appliance includes one or more application program interfaces (APIs) to provide access to and from the plug-in network analysis modules; the recommendation analysis engine has a plug-in architecture to provide access to data from one or more systems via the APIs to the plurality of plug-in network analysis modules; and the plurality of plug-in network data traffic analysis modules that are configured during operation of the network traffic management appliance ; correlate data from at least the first system of the first network and the second system of the second network to extend a universe of data analysis of the network traffic data; and adjust one or more of the policies that manage network traffic based on the recommendation to improve an efficiency of sending and receiving of the network traffic data to at least the first and second systems.” to broaden the claim.
8. A system for analysis of network traffic data, the system comprising: a network traffic management appliance having inputs to receive network traffic data between network data systems, wherein the network data system comprise at least a first system of a first network and a second system of a second network,: analyze the received network traffic data;;
output a recommendation based on the selected network traffic data;
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the network traffic management system adjusts a policy for improving the efficiency of the sending and receiving of network traffic to the plurality of computing devices according to the output recommendation.
Claim 8: adjust one or more of the policies that manage network traffic based on the recommendation to improve an efficiency of sending and receiving of the network traffic data to at least the first and second systems.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the network traffic management system is a central management system, and wherein the network is one of a plurality of networks, wherein the network traffic analysis module analyzes network traffic on the plurality of networks.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the network traffic management system includes a plurality of network traffic appliances each managing traffic on an affiliated network, the central management system collecting network traffic data on at least one of the plurality of networks.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the system further comprises: a plurality of network traffic appliances each managing traffic on an affiliated network, the central management system of each network traffic appliance is configured during operation to collect network traffic data on at least one of the plurality of networks
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the network traffic management system includes anetwork traffic appliance, and wherein the recommendation engine is on the network traffic appliance.
13. The system of claim 8, wherein the network traffic analysis module is one of a plurality of network traffic analysis modules installed on the network traffic recommendation engine,
14. The system of claim 9, wherein the recommendation is one of an improved configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance
11. The system of claim 8, wherein the recommendation comprises at least one of a new configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance.
15. The system of claim 9, further comprising a user interface that allows the recommendation to be communicated to a user.
12. The system of claim 8, further comprising a user interface that during operation is configured to communicate the recommendation to a user.
16. The system of claim 9, wherein the network traffic analysis module is one of a plurality of network traffic analysis modules installed on the network traffic recommendation engine, each
of the network traffic analysis modules obtaining selected network traffic data from the network and outputting a recommendation.
13. The system of claim 8, wherein the network traffic analysis module is one of a plurality of network traffic analysis modules installed on the network traffic recommendation engine, each of the network traffic analysis modules plurality of plug-in network analysis modules are configured to obtain selected network traffic data from the network and a output the recommendation.
17. The system of claim 16, further comprising a scheduling manager for selecting one or more network traffic analysis modules to be executed before another network traffic analysis module based on the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis modules.
14. The system of claim 13 wherein the network traffic management appliance further comprises: a scheduling manager, coupled to the plurality of plug-in network traffic analysis modules and configured to prioritize operation one or more of the plurality of plug-in network traffic analysis modules.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective network traffic analysis module.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the prioritization of the one or more plug-in network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective plug-in network traffic analysis module.
19. A network traffic analysis appliance for improving the efficiency of networked
computers in processing data, the network traffic appliance comprising:
a network recommendation engine; a storage device coupled to the network recommendation engine;
a network interface to collect network traffic data when coupled to a network;
a plug-in module executed by the network recommendation engine, the plug-in module reading data relating to network traffic, analyzing the data, and outputting a recommendation; and
a quality of service controller routing network traffic in response to the recommendation to increase the processing efficiency of the network.
Applicant deleted “wherein the plug-in module correlates the network traffic data from a plurality of multiple disparate databases and systems including the networked computers to extend a universe of data analysis; a module manager executed by the network recommendation engine to manage the plug-in network traffic analysis modules, wherein to manage the plug-in network traffic analysis modules includes to determine which network traffic analysis modules the traffic management appliance executes, when to execute the network traffic analysis modules, and to store network traffic analysis modules configuration information and the module manager and the plug-in are distinct from policies that manage network traffic” to broaden the claim.
16. A network traffic management appliance for improving the efficiency of networked computers in processing data, the network traffic appliance comprising: a network recommendation engine; a network interface to collect network traffic data when coupled to a network; a storage device coupled to the network recommendation engine to store collected network traffic data; a plug-in module executable by the network recommendation engine to read data relating to network traffic, analyzing the data, and outputting a recommendation, and a quality of service controller to route network traffic in response to the recommendation to increase the processing efficiency of the network.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 16,17 and 18 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitations, “network traffic analysis module” (claim 1,16, 18) and “network traffic analysis modules” (claim 6, 8, 16,17) , “plug-in module” (claim 8) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder ("module") is not preceded by a structural modifier. For example, "network data traffic analysis" and “plug-in” all do not add any structure to the generic term.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims1, 6, 8, 16-18 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification (e.g., par [0057]) shows that the software appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. However, the specification discloses the specific algorithm (FIG. 8) that transforms the general purpose computer to the special purpose computer programmed to perform the specific claimed function.
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If the Applicant does not intend to have the claimed limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1,4, 5, 9-11, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Natarajan (US 6765864 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Natarajan teaches a method of analyzing data on network traffic in a network having a plurality of computing devices coupled to a network traffic appliance that routes data to and from the computing devices (col 5 lines 18-22 “a frame relay network that comprises of a group of frame relay virtual circuits for transmitting data between a first computer system and a second computer system”; devices 104A and 104B represent frame relay devices such as routers (col. 6, lines 24-26; FIG. 1)[ a frame relay network that comprises of a group of frame relay virtual circuits for transmitting data between a first computer system and a second computer system implies routing of data to and from the computing device], the method comprising:
installing a plug-in network traffic analysis module on a network traffic recommendation engine running the network traffic analysis module to obtain selected network traffic data on the network (col. 15, lines 1-3 “that the policy engine allows for application specific plug-in policies to be added or deleted from the system”; col. 15, lines 19-35 “each application specific plug-in policy module includes one or more policies that contain a specific set of rules for analyzing specific information from selected network element”; col. 15, lines 11-15” the application specific policy plug-ins include traffic-shaping policies… The network element then attempts to access (916) the data in order to retrieve the specified updated control information”);
analyzing the selected network traffic data via the network traffic analysis module((col. 7, lines 57-62” the information which is reported to the data store is analyzed by a policy engine and that the policy engine includes a plurality of application specific plug-in policies”));
outputting a recommendation based on the selected network traffic data (see col 7 lines 57-col 8 lines 3 “e updated control information may include any type of information, parameters, and/or actions which may be used to affect the operation of one or more network elements. The updated control information is then fed back to selected network elements to thereby affect operation of the selected elements and/or network. Typically, when the operation of a network element has been affected, its corresponding operating parameters and/or operating information will change.”)[ updated control information is then fed back to selected network elements is interpreted as outputting recommendation]; and
adjusting a policy based on the recommendation to improve the efficiency of the sending and receiving of network traffic to the plurality of computing devices(Natarajan et al. discloses that the selected network elements are dynamically reconfigured to cause the performance of various aspects of the network to conform with desired performance criteria ( col 4 lines 7-12 “ administration system dynamically modify the policy in response to the determination that the policy is not effective”). .
Regarding claim 9, Natarajan teaches a system for analysis of network traffic data, the system comprising: a network having a plurality of network devices exchanging data; a network traffic management system coupled to the network for managing data traffic on the network col 5 lines 18-22 “a frame relay network that comprises of a group of frame relay virtual circuits for transmitting data between a first computer system and a second computer system”; devices 104A and 104B represent frame relay devices such as routers in col. 6, lines 24-26); and
a network traffic recommendation engine including a plug-in network data traffic analysis module, the network data traffic analysis module col. 15, lines 1-3 “that the policy engine allows for application specific plug-in policies to be added or deleted from the system”; col 15, lines 11-15” the application specific policy plug-ins include traffic-shaping policies”)
obtaining selected network traffic data on the network (col. 15, lines 19-35 “each application specific plug-in policy module includes one or more policies that contain a specific set of rules for analyzing specific information from selected network element”; col. 15, lines 11-15” the application specific policy plug-ins include traffic-shaping policies… The network element then attempts to access (916) the data in order to retrieve the specified updated control information”);
analyzing the selected network traffic data(col. 7, lines 57-62” the information which is reported to the data store is analyzed by a policy engine and that the policy engine includes a plurality of application specific plug-in policies”));; and
outputting a recommendation based on the selected network traffic data(see col 7 lines 57-col 8 lines 3 “e updated control information may include any type of information, parameters, and/or actions which may be used to affect the operation of one or more network elements. The updated control information is then fed back to selected network elements to thereby affect operation of the selected elements and/or network. Typically, when the operation of a network element has been affected, its corresponding operating parameters and/or operating information will change.”)[ updated control information is then fed back to selected network elements is interpreted as outputting recommendation];.
Regarding claim 19, Natarajan teaches a network traffic analysis appliance for improving the efficiency of networked computers in processing data (Abstract “a policy engine that analyze the information reported to a data store; col. 14, lines 9-12 “data store collects and store current network operating information for subsequent analysis”), the network traffic appliance comprising: a network recommendation engine (col. 14 lines 43-49 “the policy engine includes a policy server that makes a decision based upon measured variables and conditions”);
a storage device coupled to the network recommendation engine; col. 13, lines 49-51 “the data store provides memory for storing current network operating information reported from one or more of the network element”)
a network interface to collect network traffic data when coupled to a network (col. 13, lines 49-51 “the data store provides memory for storing current network operating information reported from one or more of the network elements”);
a plug-in module executed by the network recommendation engine (“ fig 5C policy engine that includes application specific policies; col. 14, lines 46-49 Lines “an application specific policy is a decision tree that allows the policy server to make a decision”), the plug-in module reading data relating to network traffic (col. 27, lines 41-43 “adaptive feedback-based network includes a policy engine for running the plurality of plug-in applications associated with the monitor system”; col. 7, lines 57-62 “ the information which is reported to the data store is analyzed by a policy engine”),
analyzing the data (col. 7, lines 57-62” the information which is reported to the data store is analyzed by a policy engine and that the policy engine includes a plurality of application specific plug-in policies”)), and
outputting a recommendation (see col 7 lines 57-col 8 lines 3 “e updated control information may include any type of information, parameters, and/or actions which may be used to affect the operation of one or more network elements. The updated control information is then fed back to selected network elements to thereby affect operation of the selected elements and/or network. Typically, when the operation of a network element has been affected, its corresponding operating parameters and/or operating information will change.”)[ updated control information is then fed back to selected network elements is interpreted as outputting recommendation];; and
a quality of service controller routing network traffic in response to the recommendation to increase the processing efficiency of the network (col. 7, line 62- col. 8, line 3 “network quality updated control information is fed back to selected network elements to thereby affect operation of the selected elements and that updated control information include any type of information, parameters and/or actions”; col. 15, lines 43-46 “ policy engine manages and controls variety of network characteristics including QoS”)
Regarding claim 4, Natarajan teaches wherein the network traffic analysis module correlates data from a plurality of systems including the network to extend the universe of data analysis Natarajan et al. discloses that the reported data corresponds to information relating to the current condition or status of each of the reporting network elements in the network (col. 7, lines 54-57); information related to a first subset of network element is retrieved, and then analyzed (col. 2, lines 29-34); information gathered includes the router managed by a first service provider, switches within a frame relay cloud, managed and maintained by a service provider such as AT&T, and a second router that may be managed by a second service provider (col. 30, lines 12-22; FIG. 16), indicating that the analysis is for a plurality of systems including the network).
Regarding claims 5, 16, Natarajan teaches wherein the network traffic analysis module is one of a plurality of network traffic analysis modules installed on the network traffic recommendation engine, each of the network traffic analysis modules obtaining selected network traffic data from the network and outputting a recommendation (see col 7 lines 57-col 8 lines 3 “e updated control information may include any type of information, parameters, and/or actions which may be used to affect the operation of one or more network elements. The updated control information is then fed back to selected network elements to thereby affect operation of the selected elements and/or network. Typically, when the operation of a network element has been affected, its corresponding operating parameters and/or operating information will change.”)
Regarding claim 10, Natarajan teaches the network traffic management system adjusts a policy based on the recommendation to improve the efficiency of the sending and receiving of network traffic to the plurality of computing devices (col 4 lines 7-12 “that the selected network elements are dynamically reconfigured to cause the performance of various aspects of the network to conform with desired performance criteria (; administration system dynamically modify the policy in response to the determination that the policy is not effective”).
Regarding Claim 11, Natarajan teaches the network traffic management system is a central management system (Natarajan et al. discloses that the event server and event handler are a central management system (FIG. 16)), and wherein the network is one of a plurality of networks (Natarajan teaches the event server is connected to router 1, which is managed by a first service provider (col. 30, lines 12-22; FIG. 16)), wherein the network traffic analysis module analyzes network traffic on the plurality of networks (Natarajan teaches that the data store receives data from router 1, switches within a frame relay cloud, and router 2 (FIG. 16); and that policy engine obtains the information from the data store (col. 15, lines 56-59 “The frame relay CIR analysis policy 1200 is responsible for analyzing CIR information reported to the data store, and for generating updated CIR values based upon the analysis of the reported information. The updated CIR data may then be used by various elements in the network to modify or affect each element's respective behavior or operation (thereby affecting operation of the network”).
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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan (US 6765864 B1) in view of Dugatkin (US 2005/0021715).
Regarding claim 12, Natarajan teaches the central management system collecting network traffic data on at least one of the plurality of networks (col. 2, lines 29-34 “ information related to a first subset of network element is retrieved, and then analyzed; (col. 30, lines 12-22; FIG. 16” information gathered includes the router managed by a first service provider, switches within a frame relay cloud, managed and maintained by a service provider such as AT&T, and a second router that may be managed by a second service provider…, indicating that the analysis is for a plurality of systems including the network”; FIG. 16 shows that the central management system collects network traffic data).
Natarajan doesn’t teach wherein the network traffic management system includes a plurality of network traffic appliances each managing traffic on an affiliated network.
Dugatkin teaches wherein the network traffic management system includes a plurality of network traffic appliances each managing traffic on an affiliated network (para 0065 “that a network testing system is coupled with a production network”; para 0066 “a second network testing system is coupled to a test network and analyzes the network traffic received over the test network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine network traffic management system includes a plurality of network traffic appliances each managing traffic on an affiliated network in the system of Natarajan. The motivation is to effectively analyze the network traffic data of a network (see Dugatkin: para 0068).
Regarding claim 13, Natarajan teaches and wherein the recommendation engine is on the network traffic appliance (col. 27, lines 41-43 “the adaptive feedback-based network includes a policy engine for running the plurality of plug-in applications associated with the monitor system”) wherein the network traffic management system includes a network traffic appliance (col 8 lines 40-43 “control elements include data store, monitor system, ADMIN system, policy engine, and event server”).
Claim(s) 2, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan (US 6765864 B1) in view of Wetherall (US 7058015)
Regarding claims 2, 14, Natarajan doesn’t teach wherein the recommendation is one of an improved configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance.
Wetherall teaches the recommendation is one of an improved configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance.(Wetherall “ see col 4 lines 61- col 5 lines 15 “director 102 automatically determines whether arrival of network traffic at a network node of interest needs to be regulated or de-regulated. .., regulation may mean moderating the arrival rate of network traffic destined for a network node of interest. However, regulation may also mean moderating the arrival of particular types and/or characteristics of network traffic”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine recommendation is one of an improved configuration of the network, changing network traffic patterns, and identifying a network computing device which may require maintenance in the system of Natarajan. The motivation is to efficiently ensure quality of service (Wetherall: see col 1 lines 39-47)
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan (US 6765864 B1) in view of Farmer (US 20160112287 A1)
Regarding claims 3, 15, Natarajan doesn’t teach displaying the recommendation to a user.
Farmer teaches displaying the recommendation to a user (see para 0064 “device 113 can be implemented using any suitable software for displaying network traffic analysis.”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine display the recommendation to a user in the system of Natarajan. The motivation is to improve analysis of network traffic data (Farmer: see para 0008)
Claim(s) 6,7, 17 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan (US 6765864 B1) in view of Lin (US 20150046425 A1)
Regarding claims 6, 17, Natarajan doesn’t teach a scheduling manager for selecting one or more network traffic analysis modules to be executed before another network traffic analysis module based on the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis modules.
Lin teaches a scheduling manager for selecting one or more network traffic analysis modules to be executed before another network traffic analysis module based on the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis modules ( see para 0100 “A scheduler can also…execute apps based on a scheduling policy.”; See para 0104 “The order and priority in which apps are executed can also be defined by the scheduling policy. For example, the scheduling policy can include, the priority scheduling algorithm….For example, the scheduling policy may dynamically assign a status to each app that would determine the priority in which the apps are to be executed” see para 0102 “he scheduling policy can also define the execution frequency of apps such that the system knows how many times an app should be executed and the interval between each execution. The scheduling policy can also administer the time, frequency, priority and length of execution)[ scheduler determine priority based on characteristics of the apps]
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine selecting one or more network traffic analysis modules to be executed before another network traffic analysis module based on the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis modules in the system of Natarajan. The motivation is to improve the overall performance of the system by efficiently allocating resources (Lin: see para 0100)
Regarding claims 7, 18, Natarajan doesn’t teach wherein the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective network traffic analysis module.
Lin teaches the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective network traffic analysis module. (see para 0100 “The main function of a scheduler is to determine and arrange the manners in which apps or applications are executed. …. A scheduler can also be configured to..execute apps based on a scheduling policy.”; see para 0102 “he scheduling policy can also define the execution frequency of apps such that the system knows how many times an app should be executed and the interval between each execution. The scheduling policy can also administer the time, frequency, priority and length of execution” see para 0105 “Therefore, if a news app is encountered, the scheduler may dynamically raise the priority or frequency of its execution,… Conversely, the scheduler may also dynamically lower the priority or frequency of an app's execution if an app that rarely updates its content is encountered.”)[ para 100, 105 and 102 implies determining priority based on characteristics of the apps that includes execution frequencies or the type of the apps, scheduling policy defining the execution frequency of apps such that the system knows how many times an app should be executed and the interval between each execution defines time sensitivity ]
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the priority of the one or more network traffic analysis is determined based on the time sensitivity of the analysis of the network traffic performed by the respective network traffic analysis module in the system of Natarajan. The motivation is to improve the overall performance of the system by efficiently allocating resources (Lin: see para 0100)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan (US 6765864 B1) in view of Ye (US 20160285710 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Natarajan doesn’t teach wherein the network traffic analysis module interfaces with a database via a data interface API.
Ye teaches wherein the network traffic analysis module interfaces with a database via a data interface API. (see para 0049 “a stand-alone application program executing on user computer 707 might access an application programming interface (API) exposed by data center 710 for performing the configuration operations.”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network traffic analysis module interfaces with a database via a data interface API in the system of Natarajan. The motivation is to provide access to data (Ye: see para 0013)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMIT KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5665. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, NOEL BEHARRY can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/PAMIT KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2416