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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldstein et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0198984 (hereinafter Goldstein).
As per claim 1, Goldstein teaches the invention as claimed comprising:
receiving, at a device and via a user interface, a user-specified selection of agents in a network, wherein the user-specified selection defines which agents to use for monitoring the network ([12][13], e.g., receiving, via user interface, user selected agents to use for monitoring);
detecting, by the device and based on data from the user-specified selection of agents, anomalies in the network ([156][182][195], e.g., detecting, based on data from selected agents, anomalies in network (e.g., worst/outliner data, degradations, etc.));
determining, by the device, a probability of an issue in the network based on a number of agents from the user-specified selection of agents that are associated with the anomalies, wherein only the user-specified selection of agents are considered ([77][154][157]-[161][186], e.g., determining likely/probable of an issue/problem in the network based on selected number of agents, wherein only the selected agents’ reported data are used for the determination); and
providing, by the device and based on the probability, an alert indicative of the issue to the user interface ([154][157]-[161][190], e.g., providing, based on the likely/probable of an issue/problem, a display of alerts).
As per claim 2, Goldstein teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Goldstein further teach receiving, at the device and via the user interface, a threshold for the probability, wherein the device provides the alert when the probability exceeds the threshold ([13][16][204]).
As per claim 4, Goldstein teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Goldstein further teach wherein at least one agent is executed by a router or endpoint in the network [12][20].
As per claim 8, Goldstein teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Goldstein further teach wherein the agents perform testing in the network with respect to a target destination ([14][37][148]).
As per claim 9, Goldstein teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8 above. Goldstein further teach wherein the testing entails the agents sending probe packets towards the target destination ([14][37][148]).
As per claim 10, Goldstein teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Goldstein further teach performing aggregation on the data from the user-specified selection of agents ([77][143]).
As per claims 11 and 20, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. See Li (col. 2, lines 37-54; fig. 2A) for one or more network interfaces; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process when executed configured to perform the method of claim 1.
As per claim 12, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
As per claim 18, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 above.
As per claim 19, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9 above.
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein.
As per claim 3, Goldstein teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Goldstein teaches wherein the issue in the network corresponds to a server performance degradation [22][195], however, Goldstein is silent in regards to a server being down. The concept of a network issue corresponds to a server being down is well known in the art. Official Notice is taken for the network issue corresponds to a server being down is well known and accepted in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Official Notice with Goldstein’s invention in order to allow Goldstein’s system to identify a network issue as associated with a server and to assist in the resolution of the network issue.
As per claim 13, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein in view of Li et al, U.S. Patent 11,336,506 (hereinafter Li).
As per claim 5, Li teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Goldstein teaches wherein the device determines the probability of the issue in the network by using information regarding the anomalies in network ([77][154][157]-[161][186]), however, Goldstein is silent in regards to Hidden Markov Model. Li teaches wherein the device determines the probability of the issue in the network by using information regarding the anomalies in network as input to a Hidden Markov Model (col. 8, lines 19-26, 36-38; col. 10, lines 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li’s teaching with Goldstein’s invention in order to allow Goldstein’s system to infer hidden states and make different predictions (col. 10, lines 17-35)
As per claim 6, Goldstein and Li teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 5 above. Li further teach wherein the issue in the network is a hidden state of the Hidden Markov Model (col. 10, lines 20-23).
As per claim 7, Goldstein and Li teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 5 above. Li further teach wherein the Hidden Markov Model assesses both forward and backward windows for the anomalies (col. 10, lines 32-35).
As per claim 15, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
As per claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
As per claim 17, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454