Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 and 21 are pending in the application.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 21 in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 22, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the network assessment and troubleshooting.”
Regarding claim 2, it is not clear which automation “the automation” is referring to because claim 1 recites, “automating network assessment and monitoring” and “automating troubleshooting.”
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites, “their paths.” It is not clear which element the term “their” is referring to in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites, “supports intent creation and application.” It is not clear what feature is being claimed/required to support intent creation and application. The language does not specify any steps nor specify any structure.
Regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hidden issues.”
Regarding claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for, “the network data.”
Regarding claim 7, it is not clear which data “the data” is referring to in the claim. Claim 1 recites “ADT data,” and claim 7 recites, “the network data.”
Regarding claim 10, it is not clear which associations “the associations” is referring to because the claim recites, “including associations of ADT data in the ADT” and “associating the ADT data with information about automation assets.”
Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intent results.”
Regarding claim 21, the language “can be” renders the claim indefinite because the language “can be” is an optional language. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. It is not clear whether the claim requires the intent column to be called via the tag.
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 1, 2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0195679 (“Zu’) in view of Hikida et al. US Patent Publication No. 2004/0006617 (“Hikida”)
Regarding claim 1, Zu teaches a method for utilizing an automation database in the network assessment and troubleshooting, the method comprising:
receiving the database including associations of database data in the database (para. [0033] network intent database 104 is a database that may store network intent information);
associating the database data with information about automation assets (para. [0023] may gather information about all network states from the agents and information about the network intent from the database. para. [0036] controller 102 may determine whether the network state with respect to each compute node and switch node matches the network intent);
automating network assessment and monitoring of a network based on the database (para. [0040] check the updated resource state against the network intent from network intent database 104 to determine which user jobs need to be rescheduled); and
automating troubleshooting a network problem based on the database (para. [0037] controller 102 may communicate with agents 114-120 to disable a link having an error and re-route or control the flow of packets based on the comparison of the gathered network information with the network intent).
Zu discloses an automation database comprising the data but does not specifically teach the database is a table, automation data table (ADT).
Hikida discloses a data table comprising data for network assessment and troubleshooting (para. [0051],[0052] trouble shooting table. current device status values, trouble shooting data contents. para. [0053] trouble shooting table T3 contains the trouble shooting data corresponding to the current attribute values included in the current device status values). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu with Hikida’s disclosure such that the data of Zu is provided in a table for network assessment and troubleshooting. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for similar benefits of utilizing tables for improved operation efficiency and workability in management operations (para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Zu in view of Hikida teach the method of claim 1, where the automation is intent-based (Zu: para. [0033] network intent).
Regarding claim 8, Zu in view of Hikida teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: updating the ADT data periodically (Zu: para. [0042] network intent may be updated when the user job scheduler updates the user job orders).
Regarding claim 10, Zu in view of Hikida teach the method of claim 1, wherein the associations comprise network intents and the ADT data (Zu: para. [0033] devices and various abstraction levels may be represented as nodes, and links between nodes may show how the devices or abstraction levels connect to each other).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida and Corson et al. US Patent Publication No. 2004/0071090 (“Corson”).
Regarding claim 3, Zu does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the ADT comprises a global data table for managing critical network assets and network intents associated with the critical network assets.
Hikida discloses a global database table for managing network assets (para. [0051],[0052] trouble shooting table. current device status values, trouble shooting data contents. para. [0053] trouble shooting table T3 contains the trouble shooting data corresponding to the current attribute values included in the current device status values). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu with Hikida’s disclosure of a global database table such that a global table is used for the management of network assets and network intends of Zu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for similar benefits of improving operation efficiency and workability in management operations (para. [0013]).
Corson discloses a table for managing critical network assets (para. [0050) table… identify specific faults associated with the network nodes that are critical to the operation of the particular end node. specifies response, e.g., recovery, actions to be taken by the end node upon notification or detection of a fault). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Corson’s disclosure of a table for managing critical network assets such that the table disclosed by Hikida is further used for managing critical network assets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for similar benefits of identifying critical nodes and minimizing service disruption following problems associated with critical nodes, improving system robustness and resiliency (see abstract; para. [0017]).
Regarding claim 9, Zu does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the ADT data comprises a path, application, critical WAN link, critical device failover, critical subnet, or critical route.
Corson discloses data comprising a path, application, critical WAN link, critical device failover, critical subnet, or critical route (para. [0019] faults or failure of critical network node. loss of connectivity with a critical network node, e.g., link failure. alternative nodes that provide equivalent service). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Corson’s disclosure such that the ADT data comprises a path, application, critical WAN link, critical device failover, critical subnet, or critical route. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for similar benefits of identifying critical nodes and minimizing service disruption following problems associated with critical nodes, improving system robustness and resiliency (see abstract; para. [0017]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida, Corson, and Xu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0022015 (“Xu”).
Regarding claim 4, Zu does not teach the method of claim 3, wherein populating of the ADT data is based on an intent template (NIT), a network intent cluster, a map folder, sites, device groups, an external file, or network applications and their paths.
Xu discloses populating of data based on an intent template (NIT) (para. [0080] determine a network intent based on a service intent proposed by a requirement device. para. [0110] generates a service intent based on a service intent template). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Xu’s disclosure such that the ADT data as disclosed by Zu and Hikida is based on an intent template. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of utilizing templates to provide information, such as requirements, that can be used to generate intents (para. [0106]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida, Corson, and Fourie et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0241436 (“Fourie”).
Regarding claim 5, Zu in view of Hikida teach the method of claim 3, wherein the ADT comprises a database for intents (Zu: para. [0023] network intent information may be stored in a database. gather information about the network intent form the database). Zu does not expressly teach supports intent creation and replication.
Fourie discloses supporting intent creation and application (para. [0030] Intent engine 120 manages all Intent create/read/update/delete (CRUD) requests from the client applications received through the Intent API 116. para. [0039] Intent engine 120 may maintain a FED database that contains all the different endpoint types supported by the Intent engine 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Fourie’s disclosure of supporting intent creation and replication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for similar benefits of providing management of intents including creating, reading, and updating of intents.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida and Chasko et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0232400 (“Chasko”).
Regarding claim 6, Zu does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: assessing an entire network for the hidden issues with the ADT.
Chasko discloses assessing an entire network for hidden issues with a database (para. [0028] one or more network tap devices 150A-150C (which may be referred to herein individually as a network tap device 150 or collectively as the network tap devices 150) can be deployed near the nodes 160 to be monitored. para. [0034] monitoring workstation 102 can detect the hidden node problem in the monitored network 140 using the collected data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Chasko’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have identified any problems on the network (para. [0002])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida, Chasko, and Waclawsky et al. US Patent No. 5,974,457 (“Waclawsky”).
Regarding claim 7, Zu does not teach the method of claim 6, further comprising: benchmarking the network data, saving the data with ADT, and assessing the network with the data stored in the ADT.
Waclawsky discloses benchmarking network data, saving the data with a table, and assessing the network with the data stored in the table (col. 4, lines 63-66. the benchmark data set which is the accumulated history of behavior of traffic on the network, as it has been monitored by the system col. 6, lines 14-22. corresponding information stored in the benchmark data set 120 which is represented by the contents of Table 2. col. 7, lines 60-62. criteria module determines if the current network operating characteristics are outside the bounds of normal behavior). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Waclawsky’s disclosure of benchmarking the network data, saving the data with a table, and assessing the network with the data stored in the table. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided a standard for comparison to determine whether network is operating according to normal network behavior (abstract; col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 4).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida, and Fourie et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0241436 (“Fourie”).
Regarding claim 11, Zu does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising executing all intents of an ADT once.
Fourie discloses executing all intents once (para. [0030] Intent Engine 120 handles decoding of Intents, including the CEDs and FEDs associated with each Intent, and translating the Intents and their associated CEDs and FEDS into networking commands that can be applied to networking components in the network infrastructure 140. para. [0052] Intent engine 120 manages all Intent processing and CRUD requests from the client applications). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Fourie’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided the capability to specify and execute network requirements without prescribing how that service and connectivity are to be realized (para. [0020]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida and Nataraja et al. US Patent No. 11,070,423 (“Nataraja”).
Regarding claim 12, Zu does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the intent results in a dashboard.
Nataraja discloses displaying intent results in a dashboard (col. 5, lines 6-14. graphical user or other interface to solicit information from users pertaining to the desired actions (e.g., deploy an intent), and may provide reports including progress and/or results of the desired actions. may present a GUI provided by application services 112 to enable a user to specify and request deployment of the intent). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Nataraja’s disclosure of displaying the intent results in a dashboard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for users to have been provided a GUI to input intents and monitor desired actions.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida and Wu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0377102 (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 13, Zu in view of Hikida teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: executing an intent diagnosis associating a network problem with the ADT and executing an intent diagnosis (Zu: para. [0036] intent from network intent database 104 and compare the gathered network information with the network intent. controller 102 may determine whether the network state with respect to each compute node and switch node matches the network intent) but not by matching the problem with an ADT entry.
Wu discloses associating a network problem with a table and executing a diagnosis by matching the problem with an entry (para. [0028] target feature data is then input into a matching sub-model to determine an operating fault corresponding to the target feature data. para. [0032] diagnostic strategy matching the operating fault may be invoked and applied to diagnose the fault of the target server). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Wu’s disclosure of associating a network problem with a table and executing an diagnosis by matching the problem with an entry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wu would have enabled improved accuracy of fault detection (para. [0008]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zu in view of Hikida, Fourie, and Avanes et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0138206 (“Avanes”).
Regarding claim 21, Zu does not teach the method of claim 11, further comprising: tagging an intent column so that the intent column can be called via the tag.
Fourie discloses an intent column (para. [0047] store the Intents 300 in a database as database entries for query with attributes as shown in Table 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu and Hikida with Fourie’s disclosure of implementing a table with an intent column. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have similarly organized intent data as entries that is searchable and used to enabled execution of intents.
Avanes discloses tagging a column so that the intent column can be called via the tag (para. [0025] tag can also be associated with an account or a column within a table. para. [0045] obtain a list of all of the columns where tag “sensitivity” has value “PII). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zu, Hikida, and Fourie with Avanes’ disclosure of tagging a column so that the intent column can be called via the tag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Fourie discloses the data is stored in a searchable data structure, and Avanes would have improved functionality of a database and provided categorized data or objects (para. [0017]).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm EST.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445