DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 4, Network Infrastructure Context Provider (NCIP) 404 has the wrong label number (i.e. 408 in specification, page 14, lines 26-29) and wrong acronym (i.e. NICP). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 8, 10-14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bothe et al.(US 2025/0007813 A1).
Bothe teaches a technique for testing network performance using an agent at the endpoint and an agent at a network element (paragraph 0016).
With respect to the claims, references to the prior art appear in parenthesis.
Claims
1. A method (Bothe et al., US 20250007813 A1, Figure 1) , comprising:
identifying, by a device (Performance Test Result stitching Service 101 in Figure 1) , an endpoint in a local network configured to execute an endpoint agent that conducts active testing of network paths between the endpoint and one or more target destinations (Endpoint that is on the first segment of the testing in paragraph 0016 and shown as 123 in Figure 1 and identified in paragraph 0039) ;
sending, by the device, a request to an infrastructure agent configured to obtain network telemetry data regarding the endpoint from the local network (Proxy agent at the network element in paragraph 0016 and shown as 105 in Figure 1);
receiving, at the device and in response to the request, the network telemetry data (Test Results 129 in Figure 1); and
providing, by the device and to a user interface, an indication of results of the active testing by the endpoint agent based in part on the network telemetry data (Performance Test Stitching Service 101 receives Test Results 117 from endpoint agent 103 and Test Results 129 from proxy agent 105) .
2. The method as in claim 1, wherein the one or more target destinations are services accessible via Internet and external to the local network (Application 107 in Figure 1 is a Software-as-a Service application in paragraph 0017) .
3. The method as in claim 1, wherein the active testing entails the endpoint agent sending probe packets towards the one or more target destinations (Network tests include path trace for collecting performance metrics using packets in paragraphs 0019-0020 are the probe packets) .
4. The method as in claim 1, further comprising: selecting networking equipment executing the infrastructure agent to which the request is to be sent, according to a policy specified via the user interface (Infrastructure agent can be a security component that corresponds to security policy enforcement associated with the endpoint in paragraph 0015) .
8. The method as in claim 1, wherein the infrastructure agent is a proxy agent that collects the network telemetry data from a data structure storing network telemetry data from networking equipment in the local network (Network element acts as a test proxy in paragraph 0016) .
10. The method as in claim 1, wherein the network telemetry data is based on network traffic between networking equipment executing the infrastructure agent and the endpoint (Performance data includes network traffic between the segments of the endpoint and the infrastructure in paragraph 0016) .
11. An apparatus (Bothe et al., US 20250007813 A1, Figure 1), comprising: 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:
identify an endpoint in a local network configured to execute an endpoint agent that conducts active testing of network paths between the endpoint and one or more target destinations (Endpoint that is on the first segment of the testing in paragraph 0016 and shown as 123 in Figure 1 and identified in paragraph 0039) ;
send a request to an infrastructure agent configured to obtain network telemetry data regarding the endpoint from the local network (Proxy agent at the network element in paragraph 0016 and shown as 105 in Figure 1);
receive, in response to the request, the network telemetry data (Test Results 129 in Figure 1); and
provide, to a user interface, an indication of results of the active testing by the endpoint agent based in part on the network telemetry data (Performance Test Stitching Service 101 receives Test Results 117 from endpoint agent 103 and Test Results 129 from proxy agent 105) .
12. The apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the one or more target destinations are services accessible via Internet and external to the local network (Application 107 in Figure 1 is a Software-as-a Service application in paragraph 0017) .
13. The apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the active testing entails the endpoint agent sending probe packets towards the one or more target destinations (Network tests include path trace for collecting performance metrics using packets in paragraphs 0019-0020 are the probe packets) .
14. The apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the process when executed is further configured to: select networking equipment executing the infrastructure agent to which the request is to be sent, according to a policy specified via the user interface (Infrastructure agent can be a security component that corresponds to security policy enforcement associated with the endpoint in paragraph 0015) .
18. The apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the infrastructure agent is a proxy agent that collects the network telemetry data from a data structure storing network telemetry data from networking equipment in the local network (Network element acts as a test proxy in paragraph 0016) .
20. A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a device to execute a process (Bothe et al., US 20250007813 A1, Figure 1) comprising:
identifying an endpoint in a local network configured to execute an endpoint agent that conducts active testing of network paths between the endpoint and one or more target destinations (Endpoint that is on the first segment of the testing in paragraph 0016 and shown as 123 in Figure 1 and identified in paragraph 0039) ;
sending a request to an infrastructure agent configured to obtain network telemetry data regarding the endpoint from the local network (Proxy agent at the network element in paragraph 0016 and shown as 105 in Figure 1);
receiving, in response to the request, the network telemetry data (Test Results 129 in Figure 1); and
providing, to a user interface, an indication of results of the active testing by the endpoint agent based in part on the network telemetry data (Performance Test Stitching Service 101 receives Test Results 117 from endpoint agent 103 and Test Results 129 from proxy agent 105) .
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.
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) 5-7, 9, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothe et al.(US 2025/0007813 A1).
Bothe does not teach that the performance metrics include lack of connectivity by the endpoint. However, Bothe does teach that the metrics include packet loss in paragraph 0028, where a complete total loss (i.e. 100%) would have been interpreted as a lack of connectivity. Therefore, it 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 that a total packet loss (i.e. 100 %) in Bothe would have been an indication of lack of connectivity by the endpoint since no packets have been communicated.
With respect to the claims, references to the prior art appear in parenthesis.
Claims
5. The method as in claim 1, wherein the network telemetry data indicates a lack of connectivity by the endpoint (Bothe teaches that the performance metrics include packet loss, where a skilled artisan would have been motivated to interpret a total packet loss (i.e. 100 %) as a lack of connectivity) .
6. The method as in claim 5, wherein the network telemetry data indicates a wireless onboarding issue associated with the endpoint (Bothe teaches that the connections can be wireless in paragraph 0001 and that the infrastructure device can be a router such that the lack of connectivity (i.e. 100 % packet loss) would have been interpreted as a wireless onboarding issue for an endpoint trying to connect to a wireless router) .
7. The method as in claim 5, wherein the indication provided to the user interface indicates that the endpoint agent was unable to perform its active testing because of the lack of connectivity (It 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 that a lack of connectivity due to 100 % packet loss would have been an indication that the endpoint agent cannot perform its testing since no test packets can be communicated) .
9. The method as in claim 1, wherein the network telemetry data indicates a failure to communicate at IP layer associated with the endpoint (Synthetic monitoring test the performance of network elements along a path through network layer/layer 3 traffic in paragraph 0002, where it 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 to that a 100% packet loss would have indicated a failure to communicate) .
15. The apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the network telemetry data indicates a lack of connectivity by the endpoint (Bothe teaches that the performance metrics include packet loss, where a skilled artisan would have been motivated to interpret a total packet loss (i.e. 100 %) as a lack of connectivity).
16. The apparatus as in claim 15, wherein the network telemetry data indicates a wireless onboarding issue associated with the endpoint (Bothe teaches that the connections can be wireless in paragraph 0001 and that the infrastructure device can be a router such that the lack of connectivity (i.e. 100 % packet loss) would have been interpreted as a wireless onboarding issue for an endpoint trying to connect to a wireless router) .
17. The apparatus as in claim 15, wherein the indication provided to the user interface indicates that the endpoint agent was unable to perform its active testing because of the lack of connectivity (It 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 that a lack of connectivity due to 100 % packet loss would have been an indication that the endpoint agent cannot perform its testing since no test packets can be communicated) .
19. The apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the network telemetry data indicates a failure to communicate at IP layer associated with the endpoint (Synthetic monitoring test the performance of network elements along a path through network layer/layer 3 traffic in paragraph 0002, where it 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 to that a 100% packet loss would have indicated a failure to communicate).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN C MARCELO whose telephone number is (571)272-3125. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MELVIN C. MARCELO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MELVIN C MARCELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463 May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights