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 § 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.
1. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “collate whether the setting of the collation target is appropriate…” The claim is unclear as the claim uses the term “collate” in a manner unconventional and undefined.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “collate” in Claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “to determine whether the setting of the collating target is appropriate based on the collation information,” while the accepted meaning is “to collect and combine.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 1 recites “collate whether the setting of the collation target is appropriate…” The claim is unclear as “appropriate” isn’t an term of relative degree that does not adequately establish the scope and boundaries of the claims.
The term “appropriate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 6-8
Claim 1 recites “output a result of the collation” The claim is unclear as to what “the collation” is referring to as there is both a “collate” step as well a “collation target.” The claim is unclear as to whether the result of the collation is therefore in relation to the collate step or to the collation target.
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.
2. Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano et al. (US 20210029079 A1).
Claim 1 Takano teaches a network setting verification device comprising:
a memory (FIG. 16, memory 51) storing instructions; (¶0125, memory storing a program, i.e. instructions) and at least one processor (FIG.16, CPU 52) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire route information and setting information held by each of network devices constituting a network; (FIG. 1, ¶0038, collection unit 11 acquires FIB setting information and NAT setting information from each network device 2of the network)
acquire collation information (¶0076, acquiring collation information in the form of generating extend IP address information and a forwarding graph) used to verify a setting of a collation target based on the route information and the setting information; (Examiner notes that “used to verify…” comprises an intended use statement without patentable weight)
collate whether the setting of the collation target is appropriate based on the collation information; (¶0076, verifying the consistency of the network based on extended IP address information and forwarding graph, wherein consistency of the network comprises the collation target, and verification of it comprises the collation target being appropriate) and
output a result of the collation. (¶0075, step 18, passing the check to the user)
Claim 2 Takano teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein collate whether the setting of the collation target is for implementing a function given to the collation target based on the collation target and the setting of the collation target. (Examiner notes that “wherein collate… is for implementing” comprises an intended use and does not have patentable weight)
Claim 3 Takano teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the collation target is identified by a condition for connection between nodes or a graph form, the nodes representing the respective network devices. (Takano, ¶0076, wherein the collation target is identified via a forwarding graph representing the network devices)
Claim 9 is taught by Takano as described for Claim 1.
Claim 10 is taught by Takano as described for Claim 1.
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.
3. Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (US 20210029079 A1) in view of Ryle et al. (US 20160119729 A1).
Claim 4 Takano teaches Claim 3, but does not explicitly teach wherein the collation target includes one of a redundant configuration, a star configuration, a point-to-point configuration, and a configuration including a network device that is limited in the number of installations.
However, from a related technology Ryle teaches one of a redundant configuration, a star configuration, (¶0047, a star configuration) a point-to-point configuration, (¶0047, a point-to-point configuration) and a configuration including a network device that is limited in the number of installations.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Takano to incorporate the different configuration types and conditions well-known in the arts, such as those considered in Ryle, in order to more effectively utilize network resources across various configurations and conditions.
Claim 5 Takano teaches Claim 4, and further teaches in a case where the collation target is the redundant configuration, collate whether the setting for a plurality of network devices connected to the same plurality of segments exceeds a predetermined similarity. (Takano, ¶0034, wherein the relationship proof matches the graphs across combinations, wherein this comprise the device setting exceeding a similarity)
Claim 6 Takano in view of Ryle teaches Claim 4, and further teaches in a case where the collation target is a star configuration, (Ryle, ¶0047, a star configuration) collate whether the setting for a privileged access of each network device other than a management device is appropriate. (Takano, ¶0004, wherein verification represents connectivity, i.e., access to each network device, as being appropriate)
Claim 7 Takano in view of Ryle teaches Claim 4, and further teaches in a case where the collation target is a point-to-point configuration, (Ryle, ¶0047, a point-to-point configuration) collate whether the setting related to line speeds of interfaces of network devices facing each other is appropriate. (Takano, ¶0004, wherein verification represents connectivity, i.e. line speed of interfaces of devices, as being appropriate)
Claim 8 Takano teaches Claim 4, and further teaches in a case where the collation target includes a network device that is limited in the number of installations, collate whether the number of installations is appropriate. (Examiner notes that this is an inherent to a network devices, in that it can materially only a specific, and therefore limited, number of installations, for example a device with 2 installations would be limited to 2 installs)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Trost can be reached at (571) 272-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2442
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2442