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 .
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 1.1 14, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1 14. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are presented for further examination.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 and Independent Claims.
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the limitations of “.the newly amended limitation and running, by the device, a simulation to determine ….and the computer network information”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The broadest interpretation of network topology can be described the actual physical layout of devices connections in the computer network or the logical layout such as how data flows within the network. The broadest interpretation of a computer network is a system that interconnected commuting devices that communicate, share data, resources and services.
With the above definition in mind, Krishna discloses the asset information obtained in the facilities are the physical layout of connection in the computer network/facility as these assets share/communicate information within the facilities (refer to par 0029-0030).
Krishna discloses the model obtains the topology information such that its model considered the customer’s assets hierarchical information in the network (e.g., assets information in the facilities, refer to par 0028, 0029, 0040-0043)
Krishan’s system is capable to further determine network baselines (refer to par 0034, 0040). The system determines the required level of the baselines/performance of the communication network in order to perform forecasting aspect of the limitation. To determine the baselines, which involving determine targets’ KPI(s) (exchange performance level information, resources information within the interconnected system in the system/network topology information and target matrix information such as deployment, operation) in the network. The KPI is to define and measure the network requirements and meets the needs such that it covers deployment, financial and packet travel time, crash reduction, CO2 emission, IT investment levels, and are considered as traffic matrix. Therefore, reference teach the alleged missing limitation ““..determining, by a device, a target level of performance required by a computer network”. Therefore, Krishna teach the limitation of “.the newly amended limitation and running, by the device, a simulation to determine ….and the computer network information”
For the similar reason above, the reference also teaches the alleged missing limitations of “…running, by the device, a simulation to determine whether replacing networking equipment in the computer network with new equipment will reduce energy consumption by the computer network and still satisfy the target level of performance, based on the usage of the computer network that was forecast by the device.”
The argument is not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Claim 5:
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the newly amended limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Krishna discloses assessing, to retrieve characteristic of the new equipment, a vendor database of available equipment and their characteristics, wherein the characteristics comprise targeted performance, support for network features, and energy consumption (refer to par 0106 and 0097 and target KPI, refer to par 0040, 0210-0213); and
Krishna discloses the system stores the input/output aggregated information/values for the equipment (refer to par 0081, 0109). Therefore, Krishna discloses wherein the simulation is further based on an expected energy consumption associated with the new equipment and stored in a database of available equipment and their characteristics (system database accounts for all resources information, refer to par 0037, 0046, 0054, 0055, 0097,0109, 0197-0199, 0210 and Nayak: par 0092, 0060-0061, 0071).
The argument is not persuasive, the rejection is maintained.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna et al hereinafter Krishna (US 2024/0403776) in view of Nayak et al hereinafter Nayak (US 2022/0300521).
Referring to Claim 1. Krishna discloses a method comprising: determining, by a device, a target level of performance required by a computer network (refer to par 0028, 0034 determine the optimization of target performance based on the current performance, 0029, 0030, 0094, 0101) based on computer network information comprising any one of (i) topology information of the computer network (ii) traffic matrix information, (iii) service level agreement measurement, or (iv) any combination of (i) – (iii) (topology information: obtain all assets information in customer’s hierarchy, refer to par 0028, 0029, 0041: customer’s factories, subsystem, enterprise levels); forecasting, by the device, usage of the computer network (predict the future system usage, refer to par 0028, 0040); running, by the device, a simulation to determine whether replacing networking equipment in the computer network with new equipment will reduce energy consumption by the computer network and still satisfy the target level of performance, based on the usage of the computer network that was forecast by the device (determine by the system simulation, how the energy consumption will be reduced, by performing the optimization and improve the system performance and refer to par 0028. The optimization includes recommendation to replace a particular equipment or other assets, refer to par 0074) and the computer network information (the models considered the assets/equipment hierarchy information/topology information and target KPI/traffic matrix information to par 0041, 0040); and sending, by the device and to a user interface, a recommendation to replace the networking equipment with the new equipment based on a result of the simulation (generate recommendation refer to par 0074 and send to the user, refer to par 0080, 0082, 0084).
Nayak, in analogous art, is introduced to further expedite the prosecution by demonstrate it is well known in the art to optimize the network performance by predict health of the network equipment(s) and make recommendations with respect to improve the performance (refer to par 0011, 0012, 0092).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Krishna with Nayak because Nayak’s teaching would allow the system of Krishna to (refer to par 0092) to improve efficiency of the system by identify the issue(s) and making appropriate recommendation.
Referring to Claim 2. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 1, Krishna discloses wherein the device determines the target level of performance required by the computer network by: inferring the target level of performance from an existing level of performance provided by the computer network (determine the optimization of target performance based on the current performance, 0094, 0101).
Referring to Claim 3. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 1, Krishna discloses wherein the target level of performance is associated with a particular online application accessed via the computer network (refer to par 0023, 0080-0082, 0210).
Referring to Claim 4. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 1, Krishna discloses wherein the simulation assesses a plurality of potential equipment to replace the networking equipment (replacement assets, refer to par 0074, 0075).
Referring to Claim 5. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 1, Krishna discloses assessing, to retrieve characteristic of the new equipment, a vendor database of available equipment and their characteristics, wherein the characteristics comprise targeted performance, support for network features, and energy consumption (refer to par 0106 and 0097 and target KPI, refer to par 0040, 0210-0213); and wherein the simulation is further based on an expected energy consumption associated with the new equipment and stored in a database of available equipment and their characteristics (system database accounts for all resources information, refer to par 0037, 0046, 0054, 0055, 0081, 0097, 0197-0199, 0210 and Nayak: par 0092, 0060-0061, 0071).
Referring to Claim 6. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 1, Krishna discloses wherein the recommendation recommends replacing the networking equipment with two or more pieces of new equipment (refer to par 0074-0075).
Referring to Claim 7. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 1, Krishna discloses assessing, by the device, whether replacement of the networking equipment with the new equipment resulted in a reduction of energy consumption predicted by the simulation (replacement would result in emission, refer to par 0075, 0095, 0097).
Referring to Claim 8. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 7, Krishna discloses updating, by the device, a model that it used to perform the simulation, when replacement of the networking equipment did not result in the reduction of energy consumption predicted by the simulation (receiving feedback, to determine the model occupancy, and update when needed, such as the change result in degradation, refer to par 0096, 0097, 0099).
Referring to Claim 9. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 1, Krishna discloses wherein the simulation is further based in part on one or more constraints specified via a user interface (refer to par 0056).
Referring to Claim 10. Krishna with Nayak disclosed the method as in claim 1, Krishna discloses wherein the networking equipment comprises at least one of: a router, a switch, or a wireless access point (refer to oar 0038).
Referring to Claims 11 – 20, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 1-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:30am - 2:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights