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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims render the 112(b) rejections moot. In response the argument, Examiner respectfully agrees. The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the current prior art rejection. In response the argument, Examiner respectfully agrees. The amendments to the claims change the scope of the invention. An updated search was conducted and a prior art was discovered: US 9,369,371 B2, Filfils.
Filfils teaches on most of the limitations of the independent claims. Filfils teaches on a switching network, ie. a switching fabric network (Figs 1-3). However, Filfils is silent on a data center switching fabric. A prior art was discovered to read on this limitation: US 8,149,730 B1, Aybay.
Aybay teaches on testing paths in a data center switching fabric. See Aybay, Col 2 ln 36-49, One or more of the packet generation modules 180 can be configured to define test packets that can be used to determine a processing capability of the target entity 100. As illustrated by path 22 in FIG. 1, a test packet defined at packet generation module 144 can be received at the switch device 142 and forwarded to the target entity 100. Col 4 ln 33-37, The switch fabric can be included within a data center network (e.g., a core portion of a data center network). Specifically, the switch fabric can define a core portion of the data center network, which can include a network or interconnection of devices. Claim 7: wherein the target entity is a multi-stage switch fabric defining at least a portion of a data center core.
It would have been obvious to modify Filfils per Aybay as it would allow the modified system to provide flexibility with implementation in varied network environments.
Please see updated rejection in view of:
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,369,371 B2 (Filfils) in view of US 8,149,730 B1 (Aybay).
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,369,371 B2 (Filfils) in view of US 8,149,730 B1 (Aybay) further in view of US 2019/0173761 A1 (Byers).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,369,371 B2 (Filfils) in view of US 8,149,730 B1 (Aybay).
Regarding Claim 1:
Filfils teaches A method for testing a system under test (SUT) using path addressing, the method comprising: at a test system (FIG. 7A, monitoring system 700) implemented using at least one processor (FIG. 7A, processor 704):
generating test traffic for testing the SUT, wherein the SUT comprises a (Col 5 ln 10-12, The MPLS network includes nodes 102-122 coupled together via communication links.)
wherein the test traffic includes a first set of test packets for triggering a test scenario or event at an area of interest (AOI) (ie. particular path of nodes) in the (Figs 1-3, node network, switching fabric), (Col 5 ln 10-12, The MPLS network includes nodes 102-122 coupled together via communication links. Col 14 ln 34-35, Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure.)
wherein at least one test packet of the first set of test packets includes encoded path addressing information specifying hops or links that the at least one packet will traverse prior to reaching a packet destination, (Col 14 ln 21-23, Segment ID stack 1 may be inserted into a header of a test message, or packet, for routing of the message through network 300.)
wherein one of the hops or links includes the AOI and the hops or links include a sequence of switching elements in the (Col 14 ln 14-19, FIG. 3C, a path monitoring system first generates segment ID stack 1. This stack encodes a path from node 304 through nodes 306,308, and 310 to node 316, using segment IDs 891, 892, 893 and 894. The path then returns from node 316 through nodes 310, 308 and 306 to node 304, as encoded by segment IDs 565, 564, 563 and 562.)
sending, using the encoded path addressing information, the test traffic to the AOI via the sequence of switching elements in the (Col 14 ln 34-39, Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure. In some embodiments, a test packet may be sent repeatedly along the path in a continuous fashion to provide continuous monitoring, the path may be monitored at intervals, or only when there is a suspected fault.)
receiving, via one or more test related entities, test feedback information regarding the test traffic, the AOI, or the SUT; (Col 18 ln 16-26, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet.)
analyzing, using the test feedback information, performance of the SUT; (Col 16 ln47-64, If a test packet routed using one of these segment stacks fails to return or otherwise indicates degraded network performance, the faulty link can be isolated in the manner described above in the discussion of FIG. 3C. Col 18 ln 16-26, examples of determination of successful routing of the test message.)
and generating test results including at least one performance metric associated with the SUT. (Col 18 ln 16-26, In an embodiment, successful routing of the test message through the test path means that the test message reaches the final node of the test path. In an alternate embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet.)
Filfils teaches on a switching network, ie. a switching fabric network (Figs 1-3). However, Filfils is silent on a data center. Filfils is silent on a data center switching fabric.
Aybay teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an apparatus includes a packet generation module that has a set of general purpose processing modules and is configured to define a test packet configured to emulate at least a portion of network traffic, Abstract.
Aybay also teaches on testing paths in a data center switching fabric. (Col 2 ln 36-49, One or more of the packet generation modules 180 can be configured to define test packets that can be used to determine a processing capability of the target entity 100. As illustrated by path 22 in FIG. 1, a test packet defined at packet generation module 144 can be received at the switch device 142 and forwarded to the target entity 100. Col 4 ln 33-37, The switch fabric can be included within a data center network (e.g., a core portion of a data center network). Specifically, the switch fabric can define a core portion of the data center network, which can include a network or interconnection of devices. Claim 7: wherein the target entity is a multi-stage switch fabric defining at least a portion of a data center core.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Filfils per Aybay to include a data center switching fabric. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide flexibility with implementation in varied network environments.
Regarding Claim 10:
Filfils teaches A system for testing a system under test (SUT) using path addressing (Col 14 ln 14-19, FIG. 3C, a path monitoring system first generates segment ID stack 1. This stack encodes a path from node 304 through nodes 306,308, and 310 to node 316, using segment IDs 891, 892, 893 and 894.), the system comprising: at least one processor; a memory; and a test system implemented using the at least one processor and the memory (Fig 7A, Monitoring system 700 includes network interface 702 for connection to one or more networks. Memory 706 includes a plurality of storage locations addressable by processor 704 and network interface 702 for storing software programs and data structures associated with the methods described herein.), the test system configured for:
generating test traffic for testing the SUT, wherein the SUT comprises a (Col 5 ln 10-12, The MPLS network includes nodes 102-122 coupled together via communication links.)
wherein the test traffic includes a first set of test packets for triggering a test scenario or event at an area of interest (AOI) (ie. particular path of nodes) in the (Figs 1-3, node network, switching fabric), (Col 5 ln 10-12, The MPLS network includes nodes 102-122 coupled together via communication links. Col 14 ln 34-35, Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure.)
wherein at least one test packet of the first set of test packets includes encoded path addressing information specifying hops or links that the at least one packet will traverse prior to reaching a packet destination, (Col 14 ln 21-23, Segment ID stack 1 may be inserted into a header of a test message, or packet, for routing of the message through network 300.)
wherein one of the hops or links includes the AOI and the hops or links include a sequence of switching elements in the (Col 14 ln 14-19, FIG. 3C, a path monitoring system first generates segment ID stack 1. This stack encodes a path from node 304 through nodes 306,308, and 310 to node 316, using segment IDs 891, 892, 893 and 894. The path then returns from node 316 through nodes 310, 308 and 306 to node 304, as encoded by segment IDs 565, 564, 563 and 562.)
sending, using the encoded path addressing information, the test traffic to the AOI via the sequence of switching elements in the (Col 14 ln 34-39, Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure. In some embodiments, a test packet may be sent repeatedly along the path in a continuous fashion to provide continuous monitoring, the path may be monitored at intervals, or only when there is a suspected fault.)
receiving, via one or more test related entities, test feedback information regarding the test traffic, the AOI, or the SUT; (Col 18 ln 16-26, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet.)
analyzing, using the test feedback information, performance of the SUT; (Col 16 ln47-64, If a test packet routed using one of these segment stacks fails to return or otherwise indicates degraded network performance, the faulty link can be isolated in the manner described above in the discussion of FIG. 3C. Col 18 ln 16-26, examples of determination of successful routing of the test message.)
and generating test results including at least one performance metric associated with the SUT. (Col 18 ln 16-26, In an embodiment, successful routing of the test message through the test path means that the test message reaches the final node of the test path. In an alternate embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet.)
Filfils teaches on a switching network, ie. a switching fabric network (Figs 1-3). However, Filfils is silent on a data center. Filfils is silent on a data center switching fabric.
Aybay teaches on testing paths in a data center switching fabric. (Col 2 ln 36-49, One or more of the packet generation modules 180 can be configured to define test packets that can be used to determine a processing capability of the target entity 100. As illustrated by path 22 in FIG. 1, a test packet defined at packet generation module 144 can be received at the switch device 142 and forwarded to the target entity 100. Col 4 ln 33-37, The switch fabric can be included within a data center network (e.g., a core portion of a data center network). Specifically, the switch fabric can define a core portion of the data center network, which can include a network or interconnection of devices. Claim 7: wherein the target entity is a multi-stage switch fabric defining at least a portion of a data center core.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Filfils per Aybay to include a data center switching fabric. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide flexibility with implementation in varied network environments.
Regarding Claim 20:
Filfils teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium that when executed by at least one processor of a test system (Fig 7A, Monitoring system 700 includes network interface 702 for connection to one or more networks. Memory 706 includes a plurality of storage locations addressable by processor 704 and network interface 702 for storing software programs and data structures associated with the methods described herein.) cause the test system to perform steps comprising:
generating test traffic for testing the SUT, wherein the SUT comprises a (Col 5 ln 10-12, The MPLS network includes nodes 102-122 coupled together via communication links.)
wherein the test traffic includes a first set of test packets for triggering a test scenario or event at an area of interest (AOI) (ie. particular path of nodes) in the (Figs 1-3, node network, switching fabric), (Col 5 ln 10-12, The MPLS network includes nodes 102-122 coupled together via communication links. Col 14 ln 34-35, Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure.)
wherein at least one test packet of the first set of test packets includes encoded path addressing information specifying hops or links that the at least one packet will traverse prior to reaching a packet destination, (Col 14 ln 21-23, Segment ID stack 1 may be inserted into a header of a test message, or packet, for routing of the message through network 300.)
wherein one of the hops or links includes the AOI and the hops or links include a sequence of switching elements in the (Col 14 ln 14-19, FIG. 3C, a path monitoring system first generates segment ID stack 1. This stack encodes a path from node 304 through nodes 306,308, and 310 to node 316, using segment IDs 891, 892, 893 and 894. The path then returns from node 316 through nodes 310, 308 and 306 to node 304, as encoded by segment IDs 565, 564, 563 and 562.)
sending, using the encoded path addressing information, the test traffic to the AOI via the sequence of switching elements in the (Col 14 ln 34-39, Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure. In some embodiments, a test packet may be sent repeatedly along the path in a continuous fashion to provide continuous monitoring, the path may be monitored at intervals, or only when there is a suspected fault.)
receiving, via one or more test related entities, test feedback information regarding the test traffic, the AOI, or the SUT; (Col 18 ln 16-26, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet.)
analyzing, using the test feedback information, performance of the SUT; (Col 16 ln47-64, If a test packet routed using one of these segment stacks fails to return or otherwise indicates degraded network performance, the faulty link can be isolated in the manner described above in the discussion of FIG. 3C. Col 18 ln 16-26, examples of determination of successful routing of the test message.)
and generating test results including at least one performance metric associated with the SUT. (Col 18 ln 16-26, In an embodiment, successful routing of the test message through the test path means that the test message reaches the final node of the test path. In an alternate embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet.)
Filfils teaches on a switching network, ie. a switching fabric network (Figs 1-3). However, Filfils is silent on a data center. Filfils is silent on a data center switching fabric.
Aybay teaches on testing paths in a data center switching fabric. (Col 2 ln 36-49, One or more of the packet generation modules 180 can be configured to define test packets that can be used to determine a processing capability of the target entity 100. As illustrated by path 22 in FIG. 1, a test packet defined at packet generation module 144 can be received at the switch device 142 and forwarded to the target entity 100. Col 4 ln 33-37, The switch fabric can be included within a data center network (e.g., a core portion of a data center network). Specifically, the switch fabric can define a core portion of the data center network, which can include a network or interconnection of devices. Claim 7: wherein the target entity is a multi-stage switch fabric defining at least a portion of a data center core.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Filfils per Aybay to include a data center switching fabric. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide flexibility with implementation in varied network environments.
Regarding Claims 3, 12:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the inventions of Claims 1, 10 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the encoded path addressing information indicates an ordered sequence of hop or link identifiers representing a partial or complete path between a first network switch associated with a traffic sender of the test system and a second network switch associated with a traffic receiver of the test system. (Col 14 ln 14-35, FIG. 3C, a path monitoring system first generates segment ID stack 1. This stack encodes a path from node 304 through nodes 306,308, and 310 to node 316, using segment IDs 891, 892, 893 and 894. The path then returns from node 316 through nodes 310, 308 and 306 to node 304, as encoded by segment IDs 565, 564, 563 and 562. Col 1 ln 54-56, a network node may take the form of one or more routers, one or more bridges, one or more switches, one or more servers, or any other suitable communications processing device. Segment ID stack 1 may be inserted into a header of a test message, or packet, for routing of the message through network 300.Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure.)
Regarding Claims 4, 13:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the inventions of Claims 3, 12 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the encoded path addressing information indicates one or more actions to perform (ie. routing the packet to the next specified segment of the path) on the at least one test packet or at a hop along the partial or complete path. (Col 14 ln 20-35, Fig 3C, Segment ID stack 1 may be inserted into a header of a test message, or packet, for routing of the message through network 300.Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure.)
Regarding Claims 5, 14:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the inventions of Claims 1, 10 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the encoded path addressing information is generated using mapping information that identifies links or hops of a test environment or the SUT. (Col 17 ln 10-17, FIG. 3B, SR routing table portion 510 maps an adjacency segment identifier to each direction of each of the three links between routers 506 and 508. Monitoring system 502 uses this segment identifier information to create a segment ID stack for attachment to a test packet. In an embodiment the test packet is an IP probe having as its source and destination address the IP address of the monitoring system.)
Regarding Claims 6, 15:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the inventions of Claims 5, 14 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the mapping information is manually provisioned; obtained by actively probing elements of the SUT; or querying a software defined network controller, a test controller, or a network management node. (Col 17 ln 10-17, FIG. 3B, SR routing table portion 510 maps an adjacency segment identifier to each direction of each of the three links between routers 506 and 508. Monitoring system 502 uses this segment identifier information to create a segment ID stack for attachment to a test packet. Col 16-17 ln 65-67, 1-10, FIG. 5A, a system and method for probing the links within a bundle between two routers remote from a monitoring system. SR-enabled routers 506 and 508 in FIG. 5A have multiple links between them. Monitoring system 502 has access to segment identifier information such as that in SR routing table portion 510 of FIG. 5B.)
Regarding Claim 7:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the invention of Claim 1 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the test related entities include a test agent, a monitoring agent, or a network probe; (Col 17 ln 10-17, FIG. 3B, Monitoring system 502 uses this segment identifier information to create a segment ID stack for attachment to a test packet. In an embodiment the test packet is an IP probe having as its source and destination address the IP address of the monitoring system.)
the test feedback information includes packet information, one or more network or link related metrics, or other data; (Col 18 ln 16-26, In an embodiment, successful routing of the test message through the test path means that the test message reaches the final node of the test path. In an alternate embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet.)
the AOI includes a network switch, a network node, a link, or a link aggregation group; (Col 14 ln 14-19, FIG. 3C, a path monitoring system first generates segment ID stack 1. This stack encodes a path from node 304 through nodes 306,308, and 310 to node 316, using segment IDs 891, 892, 893 and 894. The path then returns from node 316 through nodes 310, 308 and 306 to node 304, as encoded by segment IDs 565, 564, 563 and 562. Col 1 ln 54-56, a network node may take the form of one or more routers, one or more bridges, one or more switches, one or more servers, or any other suitable communications processing device.)
or the SUT includes an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (Col 22 ln 36-42), a network interface card (NIC), a network switch, a network router, a packet forwarding device, a data center switching environment, a network, or software emulating one or more devices. (Fig 7A, Monitoring system 700 includes network interface 702 for connection to one or more networks. Memory 706 includes a plurality of storage locations addressable by processor 704 and network interface 702 for storing software programs and data structures associated with the methods described herein. Col 14 ln 14-19, FIG. 3C and Col 1 ln 54-56 shown in limitation above.)
Regarding Claims 8, 18:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the inventions of Claims 1, 10 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the test traffic includes a second set of test packets (ie. a test packet repeatedly sent) destined for a traffic receiver (ie. node 316) of the test system that traverses the SUT. (Col 14 ln 14-19, 34-39, FIG. 3C, a path monitoring system 15 first generates segment ID stack 1. This stack encodes a path from node 304 through nodes 306, 308, and 310 to node 316, using segment IDs 891, 892, 893 and 894. The path then returns from node 316 through nodes 310, 308 and 306 to node 304, as encoded by segment IDs 565, 564, 563 and 562. Segment ID Stack 1 may be used to route a test packet along its encoded path as part of a path monitoring procedure. In some embodiments, a test packet may be sent repeatedly along the path in a continuous fashion, to provide continuous monitoring. In other embodiments, the path may be monitored at intervals, or only when there is a suspected fault.)
Regarding Claims 9, 19:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the inventions of Claims 1, 10 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the test scenario or event triggered by the first set of test packets includes congestion, latency, link failure, link aggregation failover, or packet drops. (Col 18 ln 16-26, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet. Col 16 ln47-64, If a test packet routed using one of these segment stacks fails to return or otherwise indicates degraded network performance, the faulty link can be isolated in the manner described above in the discussion of FIG. 3C. Col 18 ln 16-26, examples of determination of successful routing of the test message.)
Regarding Claim 16:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the invention of Claim 10 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the test related entities include a test agent, a monitoring agent, or a network probe; (Col 17 ln 10-17, FIG. 3B, Monitoring system 502 uses this segment identifier information to create a segment ID stack for attachment to a test packet. In an embodiment the test packet is an IP probe having as its source and destination address the IP address of the monitoring system.)
the test feedback information includes packet information, one or more network or link related metrics, or other data; (Col 18 ln 16-26, In an embodiment, successful routing of the test message through the test path means that the test message reaches the final node of the test path. In an alternate embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes obtaining values within an expected range of one or more network metrics, such as latency. In another embodiment, successful routing of the test message includes a match between the expected test path and a path actually taken by the packet.)
Regarding Claim 17:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) teaches on the invention of Claim 10 as described.
Filfils teaches wherein the AOI includes a network switch, a network node, a link, or a link aggregation group; (Col 14 ln 14-19, FIG. 3C, a path monitoring system first generates segment ID stack 1. This stack encodes a path from node 304 through nodes 306,308, and 310 to node 316, using segment IDs 891, 892, 893 and 894. The path then returns from node 316 through nodes 310, 308 and 306 to node 304, as encoded by segment IDs 565, 564, 563 and 562. Col 1 ln 54-56, a network node may take the form of one or more routers, one or more bridges, one or more switches, one or more servers, or any other suitable communications processing device.)
or the SUT includes an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (Col 22 ln 36-42), a network interface card (NIC), a network switch, a network router, a packet forwarding device, a data center switching environment, a network, or software emulating one or more devices. (Fig 7A, Monitoring system 700 includes network interface 702 for connection to one or more networks. Memory 706 includes a plurality of storage locations addressable by processor 704 and network interface 702 for storing software programs and data structures associated with the methods described herein. Col 14 ln 14-19, FIG. 3C and Col 1 ln 54-56 shown in limitation above.)
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,369,371 B2 (Filfils) in view of US 8,149,730 B1 (Aybay) further in view of US 2019/0173761 A1 (Byers).
Regarding Claims 2, 11:
Filfils (as modified by Aybay) on the inventions of Claims 1, 10 as described.
Filfils teaches on a user/admin or server assigning segment IDs to nodes (Col 6 ln 39-43). However, Filfils (as modified by Aybay) is silent on prior to generating the test traffic: receiving, from a user, a declarative test objective or user input; and generating, using the declarative test objective or user input, test traffic generation instructions for generating the first set of test packets.
Byers teaches, in the same field of endeavor, analytics data that provides an indication of how the network or system is responding to a set of test stimuli introduced into the network or system to facilitate an analysis operation, Abstract.
Byers also teaches prior to generating the test traffic: receiving, from a user, a declarative test objective or user input; and generating, using the declarative test objective or user input, test traffic generation instructions for generating the first set of test packets. ([0023] the analytics machine learning subsystem 206 with initial, high-level descriptions of the networks, applications, types of tests to be run against/on the network, operational goals, threat descriptions, and/or types of conditions to look for in the network. This intent could be communicated in various high level network description formats, natural language, expert systems, machine generated inputs (simulation results, logs, measurements, etc.) or high level architectural descriptions.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Filfils (as modified by Aybay) by modifying Filfils per Byers to include receiving, from a user, a declarative test objective or user input; and generating, using the declarative test objective or user input, test traffic generation instructions for generating the first set of test packets. This would have been advantageous and expected as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide administrators and/or third party companies to have input, to include user input for generating and directing the purpose of the testing.
Conclusion & Contact Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RACHEL J HACKENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-5417. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/RACHEL J HACKENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights