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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STIFFLER et al PG PUB 2013/0042020.
Re Claim 1, STIFFLER et al teaches in figure 1, a Network Administrator 116 (a management server) receiving a performance metric (data) from a manage node 110 corresponding to an unmanage link between the manage node 110 and an unmanaged target node 114 [0023-0024]; based on the performance metric, the Network administrator 120 identifying a communication problem (a network issue) based on the performance related data [0025]; the Network administrator 116 generating a notification indicating the communication problem to a Path Discovery Module 118 [0036 0039] wherein the network administrator 116 have access privileges to the managed nodes to control and execute network management processes [0023] wherein the network management process can include sending a task to the managed node to collect the performance related data (network performance information).
Re Claim 2, STIFFLER et al teaches on the Network Administrator 116 retrieving path information (change a link route) from the Path Discovery Module 118 [0030] and sending the path information to the manage node 110 in response to identifying the communication problem.
Re Claim 3, STIFFLER et al teaches receiving a second performance related data (second data) [0025] corresponding to a second manage node 112 for collecting (task) a second performance related corresponding to a second unmanaged link between the second manage node 112 and the unmanaged target device wherein the Network Administrator 116 identifying the communication problem (the network issue) based on the performance related data from each manage nodes 110, 112 (the data and the second data).
Re Claim 6, STIFFLER et al teaches the task indicates a trace route procedure [0058].
Re Claim 8, STIFFLER et al teaches the Path discovery module 118 (API) task is a third party [0029].
Re Claim 10, STIFFLER et al teaches in figure 9, a Network Administrator 116 comprising a communication interface 920, processor 904 and memory 906 for sending a first data collection task to a manage node 110 (a first agent of a first device) and receiving a first performance metric (data) corresponding to a first unmanaged link between the manage node 110 and a unmanaged node 114 [0023 0024]; the Network Administrator 116 sending a second data collection task to a manage node 112 (a second agent of a second device) and receiving a second performance metric (a second data) corresponding to a second unmanaged link between the manage node 112 and a unmanaged node 114 [0023 0024]; the Network Administrator 116 (the processor) identifying the communication problem (the network issue) based on the performance related data (the data and the second data) [0025].
Re Claim 11, STIFFLER et al teaches the Network Administrator 116 (includes the processor) to select the manage node 110 (the first device) as a representative device of the manage node 110 and unmanage node 114 (a first set) based on the performance data (telemetry data) received for the manage node (the first device [0024].
Re Claims 12, 14, 15, STIFFLER et al teaches the Network Administrator 116 periodically collects the performance data [0030] wherein the periodicity (a data collection threshold) is indicated by in the collection task wherein the manage node sends the collected data based on the timer reaching its periodicity (the data collection threshold is satisfied).
Re Claim 13, STIFFLER et al teaches in figure 9, the Network Administrator 116 (a management server) comprising a memory (CRM) coupled to a processor 904 for sending a data collection task [0023] to a manage node 110 (See figure 1); based on the collection task, the manage node 110 collects performance related data (data) corresponding to an unmanage link between the manage node 110 and unmanage target node 114; based on the performance data, the Network Administrator 116 identifies a communication problem (a network issue), the manage node 110 receiving path change (a notification) based on the communication problem.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STIFFLER et al PG PUB 2013/0042020 in view of INO PG PUB 2020/0169454.
Re Claim 4, STIFFLER et al teaches the link between managed node 112 and unmanage node 114 is wired (the second unmanaged link) and the Network Administrator 116 identifying the communication problem (the network issue) based on the performance related data (data). STIFFLER et al fails to explicitly teach "the unmanaged link includes a wireless link and the data comprises a wireless signal quality metric". However, INO teaches a node includes a wired connection and a wireless whereby when a malfunction is detected on the wired connection the nodes, the node switches to the redundant wireless connection to perform path switching over the failed connection. By combining the teachings, the manage node 110 can be modified with the redundant system node of INO for link recovery. is also be modified to retrieve wireless performance related data from the Network Administrator 116 manage node 110 whereby the Network Administrator would have determined the communication problem based on both the wired and wireless performance related data (data and the second data). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the unmanaged with the node of INO to improve connection reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STIFFLER et al PG PUB 2013/0042020 in view of Behle et al PG PUB 2013/0290564.
Re Claim 7, STIFFLER et al fails to explicitly teach "a socket procedure". However, Behle et al teaches a management server performing socket procedure to confirm connectivity [0029]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated have modified the Network Administrator 116 to include the socket procedure of Behle et al to confirm connectivity between the nodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STIFFLER et al PG PUB 2013/0042020 in view of Jagadeesh et al PG PUB 2021/0135938 and LIN PG PUB 2020/0057572.
Re Claim 9, STIFFLER et al fails to explicitly teach "the data comprises a boot time,.. determining a power outage period based on the boot time.". However, Jagadeesh et al teaches collecting boot time [0038] and LIN et al teaches abnormal power failure can be determining based on elongating of the boot time [0024]. By combining the teachings, the Network Administrator 116 can be modified to collect boot time of each manage nodes to determine a power outage. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have determined the power outage of the manage node to enable reliable rerouting over the failed node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STIFFLER et al PG PUB 2013/0042020 in view of TURLINGTON et al PG PUB 2014/0068106.
Re Claims 16, 17, STIFFLER et al fails to explicitly teach “wherein the collection data threshold is a latency threshold/a network quality threshold”. However, TURLINGTON et al teaches the collection threshold such as a latency threshold or network quality threshold [0043] can be established to initial path switching to improve transmission reliability. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to included the latency threshold in STIFFLER to maintain QoS. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have incorporated the latency threshold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Claims 1, 10 and 13, Applicant argues in page 6, that STIFFLER make no mention of “sending a task to a managed node that targets a specific unmanaged device to collect data regarding that unmanaged device”. This limitation is not claimed. What is claimed is “sending a task to a managed node to collect data”.
STIFFLER teaches the network administrator 116 may have access privileges to manage nodes to allow network administrator 116 to access, control, and execute network management processes [0023]. It is anticipated that the executed network management processes include sending a task to the managed node to collect data. In so doing, the network administrator is enabled to collect network performance data to perform troubleshooting [0024].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights