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 Amendment
This Action is in response to remarks/amendments filed on 04/07/2026.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 19, as well as claims 3, 5-7, 10, 13 and 15-17 are amended.
Claims 2, 12 and 20 are cancelled. There are no new claims.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-19 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-19 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 8-12 of REMARKS, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 04/07/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections to the extent the rejections may be considered applicable to the claims as amended. The applied references, alone or in any combination, fail to disclose or suggest the features defined by Applicant's claims, and there would have been no apparent reason that would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the applied references to arrive at the claimed features.
Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patentable over the cited references for at least the following reasons. The cited references fail to disclose or suggest a system configured to "select, from a hierarchy of remediation actions, based on the identified root cause, an action to remediate the connectivity issue," and configured to "send, based on the identified root cause of the connectivity issue, via a first communication interface to a neighbor network device of the one or more neighbor network devices, instructions for the first network device to perform the selected action to remediate the connectivity issue, wherein the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via a second communication interface that is different from the first communication interface," as set forth by amended claim 1.
The Office Action rejected independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Wang. In particular, the Office Action asserted that paragraphs [0021], [0046]-[0051], [0088]-[0089], and Figures 6A/6C of Agarwal disclose the features of identifying neighbor devices and sending instructions to neighbors. Applicant respectfully submits that Agarwal, alone or in combination with Wang, fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of amended claim 1: a system comprising one or more processors configured to "select, from a hierarchy of remediation actions, based on the identified root cause, an action to remediate the connectivity issue;" and configured to "send, based on the identified root cause of the connectivity issue, via a first communication interface to a neighbor network device of the one or more neighbor network devices, instructions for the first network device to perform the selected action to remediate the connectivity issue, wherein the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via a second communication interface that is different from the first communication interface.
Applicant respectfully submits that Agarwal does not teach these limitations. Instead, Agarwal discloses a distributed, reactive discovery mechanism where an intermediate device sends a "discovery message" to its own physical neighbors without knowing whether those neighbors are actually connected to the target "receiver device" (i.e., the device with the connectivity issue).” (See page 8-9 of REMARKS, filed 04/07/2026).
Applicant’s arguments against cited references to Agrawal and Wang with respect to the new claim limitation “select, from a hierarchy of remediation actions, based on the identified root cause, an action to remediate the connectivity issue” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Agrawal and Wang references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. McCunn was previously cited for similar limitation in claim 10, and examiner maintains that the reference to McCunn still reads on the new limitation highlighted above. Please see claim rejection below for further details.
Applicant’s arguments against cited references to Agrawal and Wang with respect to the amended claim limitation “wherein the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via a second communication interface that is different from the first communication interface” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
“Specifically, paragraph [0053] of Agarwal states: "In response to detecting that the data message did not reach the receiver device, a discovery message is may be sent to one or more neighbor devices... wherein the discovery message carries an identification (ID) of the receiver device and a discovery scope indicating how many hops the discovery message is allowed to traverse." Importantly, in Agarwal, the entity sending the message does not "identify" a neighbor locally connected to the receiver device based on a topology representation, nor does Agarwal maintain a hierarchy of remediation actions. Rather, in Agarwal, the sender blindly forwards the message to its own neighbors, hoping they might be connected. The determination of connectivity happens after the sender's neighbor receives the message. Paragraph [0088] of Agarwal explains: "...the particular/neighbor device may determine whether the receiver device is reachable by the particular device." If the neighbor cannot reach the receiver, the particular/neighbor device decrements the number of hops in the discovery scope and forwards the message to another neighbor device to reattempt to reach the receiver device. In other words, in Agrawal, the discovery message carries an identification (ID) of the receiver device and a discovery scope indicating how many hops the discovery message is allowed to traverse. Unlike amended claim 1, Agarwal does not disclose or suggest the discovery message carrying instructions to perform a remediation action, let alone the remediation action selected from a hierarchy of remediation actions.
This distributed process in Agarwal is fundamentally different from the claimed invention. In Agarwal, the central NMS is not the entity detecting the specific link failure in real- time, nor is the NMS the entity identifying the relationship to neighbors for the purpose of repair, nor is the NMS the entity sending instructions to those neighbors to trigger repair. Those actions are performed locally by the distributed nodes themselves based on their own local neighbor caches/tables.
In contrast, amended claim 1 requires the system itself to perform these steps using a "network topology representation." The claimed system maintains a global view (the topology representation) and utilizes it to proactively select a specific device that is already known to be locally connected to the device having the connectivity issue. Agarwal's NMS 150 does not perform this step. Agarwal's NMS is a passive root or management node, while the local nodes perform neighbor discovery using multicast messages or local caches. The local nodes do not possess or analyze a global "network topology representation" to identify neighbors as claimed; they simply react to local conditions.
Furthermore, amended claim 1 recites the system (e.g., the NMS) sending instructions via a first communication interface to a neighboring network device, and the neighboring network device, in turn, relaying the instructions from the neighboring network device to the first network device having connectivity issues via a second, different communication interface. As discussed during the Examiner Interview on March 13, 2026, Agarwal does not explicitly disclose using different communication interfaces in this coordinated manner to bypass a connectivity issue. While Agarwal teaches nodes with multiple interfaces, it does not suggest a system-level coordination where an NMS identifies an active status via neighbor-collected data and leverages a cross-interface relay (e.g., wired-to-wireless) to remediate a broken primary connection.
Modifying Agarwal to have the NMS perform the neighbor identification, selection from a hierarchy of remediation actions, and instruction sending would fundamentally change Agarwal's principle of operation. Agarwal's system is premised on a distributed "efficient link repair mechanism" where nodes react autonomously to failures without waiting for central intervention. Shifting this logic to a central NMS would defeat the purpose of Agarwal's distributed, low-latency local repair mechanism and render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of handling link failures in networks where central control is too slow or costly. Therefore, the combination is improper under MPEPMPEP 2143.01(VI).” (See page 9-11 of REMARKS, filed 04/07/2026).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the entity sending the message "identify" a neighbor locally connected to the receiver device”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's argues that the distributed process in Agarwal is fundamentally different from the claimed invention because in Agarwal, the central NMS is not the entity detecting the specific link failure in real- time, nor is the NMS the entity identifying the relationship to neighbors for the purpose of repair, nor is the NMS the entity sending instructions to those neighbors to trigger repair. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “central NMS as the entity detecting the specific link failure in real-time, or the NMS as the entity identifying the relationship to neighbors for the purpose of repair, or the NMS as the entity sending instructions to those neighbors to trigger repair”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Agarwal's NMS 150 is a passive root or management node, while the local nodes perform neighbor discovery using multicast messages or local caches, and therefore, does not select a specific device that is already known to be locally connected to the device having the connectivity issue. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “select a specific device that is already known to be locally connected to the device having the connectivity issue”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues that modifying Agarwal to have the NMS perform the neighbor identification and instruction sending would fundamentally change Agarwal's principle of operation. However, claim 1, as currently amended, recites “send, based on the identified root cause of the connectivity issue, to at least one of the one or more neighbor network devices, instructions for the first network device to perform an action to remediate the connectivity issue”. As set forth above, Agarwal in [0067] in view of Fig.6B:540' teaches that the intermediate device (e.g., node 22) may return a notification 650, such as an ICMP error message, to the source/ root node in order to prompt the source to resend the data message 540'. As such, upon receiving the repeated data message 540', the penultimate hop may encapsulate the data message into a multicast local search packet, that is, discovery message 640; The examiner articulates that the data message 540' from root node to node 12 corresponds to instructions sent to at least one of the one or more neighbor network devices for the first network device (node 22) to perform an action to remediate the connectivity issue (a local link repair). Similarly, examiner further articulates that the data message 540' from node 12 eventually to node 22 teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more neighbor network devices (see Fig.6B:12) communicates the instructions (see Fig.6B:540') to the first network device, as currently claimed. This is not fundamentally changing Agarwal's principle of operation, but is rather the fundamental principle of operation in Agarwal, as shown in Fig.6B.
“Wang was cited for allegedly teaching root cause analysis using a Bayesian network.
Wang does not address the deficiency in Agarwal regarding the selection of remediation actions from a hierarchy based on an identified root cause. Singh was cited for allegedly teaching selection of a "nearest neighbor." Singh does not cure the fundamental deficiency in Agarwal. McCunn was cited for allegedly disclosing selection of actions to remediate the connectivity issue. However, McCunn does not teach the specific claimed interaction where the NMS selects the next action in the hierarchy. McCunn does not overcome the fundamental deficiency in Agarwal.
The proposed combination of Agarwal and Wang, individually or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the subject matter of amended claim 1. For at least the reasons discussed above, independent claim 1 is patentable over Agarwal and Wang.” (See page 11 of REMARKS, filed 04/07/2026).
Examiner concurs with the applicant that McCunn was cited for allegedly disclosing selection of actions to remediate the connectivity issue. For similar limitation now recited in claim 1, examiner maintains that McCunn still teaches the features as claimed.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that McCunn does not teach the specific claimed interaction where the NMS selects the next action in the hierarchy, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the NMS selects the next action in the hierarchy”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments for independent claims 11 and 19 (see page 11 of REMARKS, filed 12/17/2025) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the combination of cited references fails to disclose the similarly recited limitations of claim 1. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the independent claim persists.
Applicant's arguments for the dependent claims 3-10 and 13-18 (see page 11-12 of REMARKS, filed 12/17/2025) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the combination of cited references fails to disclose all the limitations of respective independent claims. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the dependent claims persist.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1, 5-11, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (hereinafter, Agarwal, US 20130227336 A1) in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter, Wang, US 20190165988 A1) in view of MCCUNN et al. (hereinafter, MCCUNN, US 20220276948 A1) in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter, Kim, US 10826815 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Agarwal discloses a system (see Fig.2:200 in view of [0028]) comprising:
memory (see Fig.2:240); and
one or more processors (see Fig.2:220) coupled to the memory (see Fig.2:240; also see [0028]; The device may comprise … at least one processor 220, and a memory 240 interconnected by a system bus 250) and configured to:
obtain network telemetry data from a plurality of network devices (see Fig.1:125) to generate a network topology representation (see [0045]; FIG. 4 illustrates an example simplified DAG that may be created, e.g., through the techniques described above, within network 100 of FIG. 1; also see [0046]; update link statistics when forwarding traffic; also see [0038]-[0040]; routing metrics and constraints may be obtained… for route selection; also see [0041]; Building a DAG may utilize a discovery mechanism to build a logical representation of the network, and route dissemination to establish state within the network so that routers know how to forward packets toward their ultimate destination; also see [0042]-[0043]; According to the illustrative RPL protocol, a Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) Information Object (DIO) is a type of Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) discovery message that carries information that allows a node to discover a RPL Instance, learn its configuration parameters, select a DODAG parent set, and maintain the upward routing topology), the plurality of network devices (see Fig.1:125) configured to provide a network (see Fig.1:100 in view of [0024]-[0026]; A computer network is a geographically distributed collection of nodes interconnected by communication links and segments for transporting data between end nodes, such as personal computers and workstations, or other devices, such as sensors, etc.; computer network 100 illustratively comprising nodes/devices 125);
identify, using the network telemetry data (see [0071] that teaches discovery message 640 to determine whether the receiver device is reachable; also see [0046]-[0051]), a first network device (see Fig.5:22) of the plurality of network devices (see Fig.5:125) with which a network connection has a connectivity issue (see [0047]; assume that link 33-22 is down. When node 33 attempts to forward a packet in the UPWARD direction across link 33-22, the node 33 will detect that the link is down; also see [0053]; distributed mechanism of discovering a failed link or an improperly utilized link (e.g., from node 22 to node 33) and triggering the downlink node (node 33) to perform a link local repair to maintain end-to-end connectivity; also see [0065]-[0066] in view of Fig.5-6A; an intermediate device, e.g., node 22, may attempt to transmit a data message 540 (e.g., a packet 140) away from a root device toward a receiver device (e.g., node 33)… the intermediate device may correspondingly detecting that the data message did not reach the receiver device; also see [0088]; particular/neighbor device may determine whether the receiver device is reachable by the particular device; see [0089]; If, on the other hand, it is determined at step 1320 that the receiver device is not reachable; examiner articulates that node 22 (which has a broken link to node 33) corresponds to the “first network device with which a network connection has a connectivity issue”);
identify, based on the network topology representation (see Fig.6A-6B:100 in view of [0045]), one or more neighbor network devices (see Fig.6A: 11, 12, 23, 32) from the plurality of network devices (see Fig.6A:125), wherein each of the one or more neighbor network devices (see Fig.6A: 11, 12, 23, 32) is locally connected to the first network device (see Fig.6A:22; also see [0056]-[0059]; as the routing topology (e.g., DAG 410) is being built, each node may build a cache/list (e.g., data structure 245) of one-hop neighbors, e.g., based on the source address of the DIOs. For example based on the connectivity shown in FIGS. 1 and 4, the neighbor cache of the certain select nodes might be: 22: 11, 12, 23, 32, 33; also see [0081]; routing protocols generally have mechanisms to inform other nodes of routing topology changes; the receiving node (e.g., the root node) would update its network database to reflect the change and compute a new source-routed path; also see [0065]-[0066] in view of Fig.5-6B; in response to detecting that the data message 540 did not reach the receiver device (e.g., node 33), the intermediate device (node 22) may send a discovery message 640 to one or more neighbor devices (e.g., node 23 and node 32), such as a unicast message to each neighbor, or a multicast (or possibly even broadcast) to the corresponding neighbor nodes; also see [0021]; discovery message is may be sent to one or more neighbor devices, wherein the discovery message carries an identification (ID) of the receiver device and a discovery scope indicating how many hops the discovery message is allowed to traverse to reach the receiver device; also see [0089]; If, on the other hand, it is determined at step 1320 that the receiver device is not reachable, then in step 1330, the particular/neighbor device may decrement the discovery scope value 644, and if non-zero in step 1335, then in step 1340 may forward the discovery message to one or more further neighbor devices of the particular device to continue searching for the receiver device (e.g., in serialized manner as described above in one specific embodiment); examiner articulates that node 22 (which has a broken link to node 33) corresponds to the “first network device with which a network connection has a connectivity issue”; examiner also articulates that nodes such as 32 and/or 23 to which discovery message 640 is sent correspond to each of the one or more neighbor network devices locally connected to the first network device);
identify a root cause of the connectivity issue (see [0080]; in addition to the link failing without the receiver node being aware of the failure, other causes for source-routing failures may include, among others, where the link (e.g., the 22-33 link) may become weak or fail, and the receiving node 33 may have selected node 23 as its new best next hop, but where the source-routing device (e.g., the root node) is unaware of the change);
select an action (see [0067] in view of Fig.6B:540'; the intermediate device (e.g., node 22) may return a notification 650, such as an ICMP error message, to the source in order to prompt the source to resend the data message 540'; As such, upon receiving the repeated data message 540', the penultimate hop may encapsulate the data message into a multicast local search packet, that is, discovery message 640; examiner articulates that the action takes is the action selected) to remediate the connectivity issue (see [0076]; Upon receiving this discovery message, as shown in FIG. 9, node 33 triggers a link-topology (local link) repair of the selected link toward the root device, thus selecting a new link for the topology (e.g., link 33-23 for DAG 410)); and
send, based on the identified root cause of the connectivity issue (see [0080]; also see Fig.6B: “X”), via a first communication interface (see [0028] in view of Fig.2:210; device may comprise one or more network interfaces 210; also see [0029]; The network interface(s) 210 contain the mechanical, electrical, and signaling circuitry for communicating data over links) to a neighbor network device of the one or more neighbor network devices (see Fig.6B:12), instructions (see Fig.6B:540') for the first network device (see Fig.6B:22) to perform the selected action (see [0067] in view of Fig.6B:540'; the intermediate device (e.g., node 22) may return a notification 650, such as an ICMP error message, to the source in order to prompt the source to resend the data message 540'; As such, upon receiving the repeated data message 540', the penultimate hop may encapsulate the data message into a multicast local search packet, that is, discovery message 640) to remediate the connectivity issue (see [0076]; Upon receiving this discovery message, as shown in FIG. 9, node 33 triggers a link-topology (local link) repair of the selected link toward the root device, thus selecting a new link for the topology (e.g., link 33-23 for DAG 410)), wherein the neighbor network device (see Fig.6B:12) communicates the instructions (see Fig.6B:540') to the first network device (see Fig.6B:22; also see [0088]; in step 1325 the particular device may forward the discovery message 640 to the receiver device, where the receiver device, upon receiving the discovery message, triggers a local link repair of the link from the receiver device toward the root device. Note also that in step 1325, the particular device in certain embodiments and situations may reply to discovery message with a proper path 850, as noted above).
Although, and as set forth above, Agarwal discloses identify a root cause of the connectivity issue (see [0080]), Agarwal does not explicitly disclose identify a root cause of the connectivity issue based on analysis of the network connection with the first network device using the network telemetry data. In addition, although as set forth above, Agrawal discloses select an action to remediate the connectivity issue (see [0067] in view of Fig.6B:540'; also see [0076]), Agarwal does not explicitly disclose select, from a hierarchy of remediation actions, based on the identified root cause, an action to remediate the connectivity issue. Furthermore, although as set forth above, Agrawal discloses wherein the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device (see Fig.6B:22; also see [0088]), and that devices may comprise one or more network interfaces for communication (see [0028]-[0029]), Agarwal does not explicitly disclose neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via a second communication interface that is different from the first communication interface.
However, in an analogous art, Wang discloses identify a root cause of the connectivity issue based on analysis of the network connection with the first network device using the network telemetry data (see [0050]; The correlator 140 processes network event data using the Bayesian network to infer the most likely (or highest probability) root causes that can explain the observed network failure events indicated in the network event data; also see [0062]-[0064]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Wang with Agarwal to identify a root cause of the connectivity issue based on analysis of the network connection with the first network device using the network telemetry data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that network monitoring data may be collected and processed in or near real-time in order to correlate root causes of network failure events in a probabilistic manner for more efficient root cause inferencing and system scalability (Wang; [0024]).
Although as set forth above, Agrawal discloses select an action to remediate the connectivity issue (see [0067] in view of Fig.6B:540'; also see [0076]), Agarwal (modified by Wang) does not explicitly disclose select, from a hierarchy of remediation actions, based on the identified root cause, an action to remediate the connectivity issue. Furthermore, although as set forth above, Agrawal discloses wherein the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device (see Fig.6B:22; also see [0088]), and that devices may comprise one or more network interfaces for communication (see [0028]-[0029]), Agarwal (modified by Wang) does not explicitly disclose neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via a second communication interface that is different from the first communication interface.
However, in an analogous art, MCCUNN discloses select, from a hierarchy of remediation actions, based on the identified root cause, an action to remediate the connectivity issue (see [0027] and [0085]-[0088]; candidate service modification events are those events which are determined by the server to be possible or likely causes of a detected performance change for the first online service; the server determines a list of corrective actions associated with the candidate service modification events; the corrective actions may be ranked according to likelihood of impact on the performance of the first online service; the server may automatically execute the corrective actions sequentially in accordance with the ranking determined in operation 906. For example, the server may not prompt an operator of the first online service for selection or confirmation before proceeding to execute the corrective actions; also see [0039] that teaches impact on the performance of an online service in terms of the effect of service modifications on performance and end-user experience- i.e. “impact on one or more users of the network”; also see [0043]-[0045]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of MCCUNN with Agarwal and Wang to select, from a hierarchy of remediation actions, based on the identified root cause, an action to remediate the connectivity issue.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that if the service modification event has a disproportionately larger performance impact for the first online service, the server may generate recommendations of, or automatically execute, one or more corrective actions in connection with the service modification event to rectify the adverse performance effects (MCCUNN; [0043]-[0045]).
Although as set forth above, Agrawal discloses wherein the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device (see Fig.6B:22; also see [0088]), and that devices may comprise one or more network interfaces for communication (see [0028]-[0029]), Agarwal (modified by Wang and MCCUNN) does not explicitly disclose neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via a second communication interface that is different from the first communication interface.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses wherein the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via a second communication interface that is different from the first communication interface (see Fig.4: 405 and 435; also see Col.8: lines 1-3 in view of Fig.2:220; hardware forwarding element (HFE) includes a set of network interfaces 220; also see Col.10: lines 46-48; also see Col.11: lines 55-61; also see claim 18 directed to an HFE; a first network interface to receive a data message… allow the received data message to be forwarded through a second network interface).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim with Agarwal, Wang, and MCCUNN so that the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via a second communication interface that is different from the first communication interface.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the network endpoints can effectively execute multipathing for a given HFE by distributing flows across several different paths leading from that HFE (Kim; Col.17: lines 47-54).
Regarding claim 5, Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN and Kim) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Agarwal further discloses wherein the first communication interface comprises a wired connection between the system and the neighbor network device (see [0026]; the links 105 may be wired links and/or shared media (e.g., wireless links, PLC links, etc.)).
Regarding claim 6, Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN and Kim) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Agarwal further discloses wherein the second communication interface comprises a wireless connection between the first network device and the neighbor network device (see [0026]; the links 105 may be wired links and/or shared media (e.g., wireless links, PLC links, etc.)).
Regarding claim 7, Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN and Kim) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Agarwal further discloses wherein the first network device includes a first network management agent, wherein the neighbor network device includes a network management agent, wherein the one or more processors are configured to send, via the first communication interface, the instructions for the first network device to perform the selected action to the second network management agent, and wherein the second network management agent communicates, via the second communication interface, the instructions for the first network device to perform the selected action to the first network management agent (see [0053], [0054], [0088]; In response to detecting that the data message did not reach the receiver device, a discovery message is may be sent to one or more neighbor devices, wherein the discovery message carries an identification (ID) of the receiver device and a discovery scope indicating how many hops the discovery message is allowed to traverse to reach the receiver device, and wherein the receiver device, upon receiving the discovery message, triggers a local link repair of the link from the receiver device toward the root device. Illustratively, the techniques described herein may be performed by hardware, software, and/or firmware, such as in accordance with the link management process. Upon receiving the discovery message, triggers a local link repair of the link from the receiver device toward the root device. Note also that in step 1325, the particular device in certain embodiments and situations may reply to discovery message with a proper path 850, as noted above; also see [0068] that suggests NMS 150 as a central agent).
Regarding claim 8, Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN and Kim) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Agarwal further discloses wherein the connectivity issue comprises at least one of: a lost connection or a dropped connection (see [0053]; distributed mechanism of discovering a failed link or an improperly utilized link (e.g., from node 22 to node 33) and triggering the downlink node (node 33) to perform a link local repair to maintain end-to-end connectivity).
Regarding claim 9, Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN and Kim) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Wang further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the root cause of the connectivity issue by processing the network telemetry data using a trained machine learning model (see [0034]; The correlator 140 receives the event model generated by the causality modeler 125 and the event data generated by the event data collector 145. The correlator 140 is configured to implement learning-based correlation methods that enable evidence-based inferencing of root causes associated with network failure events. The correlator 140 may construct a Bayesian network based on the received event model and the received event data. The received event data is indexed to match the symptoms nodes indicated in the event model. The correlator 140 may then infer, using the Bayesian network, one or more root causes that may be most likely to explain the observed network failure events).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Wang with Agarwal, MCCUNN and Kim so that the one or more processors are configured to identify the root cause of the connectivity issue by processing the network telemetry data using a trained machine learning model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that network monitoring data may be collected and processed in or near real-time in order to correlate root causes of network failure events in a probabilistic manner for more efficient root cause inferencing and system scalability (Wang; [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN and Kim) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above, including one or more actions to remediate the connectivity issue based on the identified root cause of the connectivity issue (see Agarwal; [0088]). In addition, MCCUNN further discloses wherein one or more remediation actions are arranged as the hierarchy of remediation actions according to impact on one or more users of the network (see [0027] and [0087]; the corrective actions may be ranked according to likelihood of impact on the performance of the first online service; also see [0043]-[0045]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of MCCUNN with Agarwal, Wang and Kim so that one or more remediation actions are arranged as the hierarchy of remediation actions according to impact on one or more users of the network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that if the service modification event has a disproportionately larger performance impact for the first online service, the server may generate recommendations of, or automatically execute, one or more corrective actions in connection with the service modification event to rectify the adverse performance effects (MCCUNN; [0043]-[0045]).
As for Claim(s) 11 and 19, the claims list all the same elements of claim 1, but in a method performed by one or more processors (see Fig.2:220); and a non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon executed by one or more processors (see Agarwal [0032]) form to carry out the steps of claim 1, rather than the system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 11 and 19.
As for Claim 15-18, the claims depend on claims 11, but do not themselves teach or further define over the limitations in claims 5-8 respectively. Therefore, claims 15-18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 5-8 respectively.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (hereinafter, Agarwal, US 20130227336 A1) in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter, Wang, US 20190165988 A1) in view of MCCUNN et al. (hereinafter, MCCUNN, US 20220276948 A1) in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter, Kim, US 10826815 B2) in view of SINGH (US 20200287782 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN and Kim) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Agarwal further discloses wherein to send the instructions, the one or more processors are configured to:
send, to the selected neighbor network device, the instructions for the first network device to perform the selected action to remediate the connectivity issue, wherein the neighbor network device communicates the instructions to the first network device via the second communication interface (see [0088]; in step 1325 the particular device may forward the discovery message 640 to the receiver device, where the receiver device, upon receiving the discovery message, triggers a local link repair of the link from the receiver device toward the root device. Note also that in step 1325, the particular device in certain embodiments and situations may reply to discovery message with a proper path 850, as noted above).
Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN and Kim) does not explicitly disclose the details to select the neighbor network device from the one or more neighbor network devices that comprises a nearest neighbor of the first network device.
However, in an analogous art, SINGH discloses select the neighbor network device from the one or more neighbor network devices that comprises a nearest neighbor of the first network device (see [0009]; Mobile devices, in the vicinity of the beacons, measure the (Received Signal Strength Indicator) RSSI of signals from each beacon and report it to a location engine over a Wi-Fi network. The location engine then uses the RSSI measurements from each terminal to determine the location of each mobile wireless terminal. Agarwal et al. (Claim 2, [0088], Figs. 12-13) teaches that to find a neighbor device, each device maintains a list neighbor devices that are one hop away. Then sends each device a discovery message. Agarwal selects a neighbor device based upon the whether the receiver device is reachable by the particular device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of SINGH into the combination of Agarwal et al. and Wang et al. to send Agarwal’s discovery message to those who are physically closest to the device first).
Therefore, 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 teachings of SINGH with Agarwal and Wang, MCCUNN and Kim to select the neighbor network device from the one or more neighbor network devices that comprises a nearest neighbor of the first network device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to convey the error message to the network monitoring server (SINGH; [0029]).
As for Claim 13, the claim depends on claim 11, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Agarwal (modified by Wang, MCCUNN, Kim and SINGH) discloses the system of claim 3, as set forth above. In addition, SINGH further discloses wherein to select the neighbor network device that comprises the nearest neighbor of the first network device, the one or more processors are configured to select the neighbor network device from the one or more neighbor network devices that is nearest to the first network device based on at least one of the network topology representation or a signal strength between the neighbor network device and the first network device (see [0009]; Mobile devices, in the vicinity of the beacons, measure the (Received Signal Strength Indicator) RSSI of signals from each beacon and report it to a location engine over a Wi-Fi network. The location engine then uses the RSSI measurements from each terminal to determine the location of each mobile wireless terminal. Agarwal et al. (Claim 2, { [0088], Figs. 12-13) teaches that to find a neighbor device, each device maintains a list neighbor devices that are one hop away. Then sends each device a discovery message. Agarwal selects a neighbor device based upon the whether the receiver device is reachable by the particular device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of SINGH into the combination of Agarwal et al. and Wang et al. to send Agarwal’s discovery message to those who are physically closest to the device first).
Therefore, 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 teachings of SINGH with Agarwal, Wang, MCCUNN and Kim so that to select the second network device that comprises the nearest neighbor of the first network device, the one or more processors are configured to select the second network device from the one or more second network devices that is nearest to the first network device based on at least one of the network representation or a signal strength between the second network device and the first network device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to convey the error message to the network monitoring server (SINGH; [0029]).
As for Claim 14, the claim depends on claim 13, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PICK et al. (US 20230188408 A1) discloses selecting, from a hierarchy of remediation actions, based on the identified root cause, an action to remediate the connectivity issue.
Conclusion
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 SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights