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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on June 26, 2024. Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on June 26, 2024 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
All the limitations of claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The structure of the monitoring apparatus, target node storage part, probe part, policy storage part, policy selection part are specified in paragraphs 0039-0040 of the specification and the algorithm for performing those function is shown as the flowchart of Fig. 4 and corresponding description in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Plurality form indication of various elements in the claims should be modified. For example, “a target node(s)”, recited in line 3 of claim 1, should be replaced as “one or more target nodes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-4, 7, 10-13, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US PGPUB No. US 20210014145 A1), hereinafter, Cai.
Regarding claim 1:
Cai teaches:
A monitoring apparatus, comprising (Fig. 1 show a first node 110 (monitoring apparatus)):
a target node storage part that stores a target node(s), which is a probe target(s) in a network (Fig. 1 shows an event collector 140 (target node storage part) and second node 120 (target node). Paragraph 0038 discloses the event collector 140 can be part of the first node 110. Paragraphs 0049 and 50 disclose the event collector 140 stores events for plurality of nodes including the second node 120. Paragraph 0053 and 0054 disclose an event includes identifier of the causing node which is subject to further probing);
a probe part that acquires a status of the target node(s) via the network and probes the status (paragraph 0109 discloses the first node 110 includes a processing unit 301(probe part) that execute the method of Fig. 2. Fig. 2, step A020, discloses the first node 110 receives a message comprising event indicating the status of the second node 120 as explained paragraph 0065. Paragraph 0049 discloses the message comprising event indicate the status of the second node 120);
a policy storage part that stores a probe policy(ies) defining a policy(ies) for probing the probe target node(s) (Fig. 1 shows a repository 140 (policy storage part). Paragraph 0039 discloses the repository 150 store rules mapping event to policy and can be part of the first node 110 as stated “Moreover, FIG. 1 illustrates a repository 150 for storing rules mapping event types to policies. The rules may be pre-defined or dynamically configurable. The repository 150 may be centralized or distributed in each node of the network 100.” ); and
a policy selection part that selects one or more of the probe policy(ies) based on the status of the target node(s) (Fig. 3 shows a retrieving unit 320 (policy selection part) for selecting a policy based on the event indicating the status of the second node 120 as stated in paragraph 0113 “The first node 110 and/or the processing unit 301 and/or the retrieving unit 320 is configured for retrieving at least one policy for failure detection based on the event type”. Also see paragraph 0068);
wherein the probe part probes the target node(s) stored in the target node storage part based on the selected policy(ies) (Fig. 2, step A070, discloses transmitting probe packet to the second node 120 based on the selected policy).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Cai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Cai further teaches wherein the probe part transmits a probe packet(s) based on the selected policy(ies); and wherein the policy selection part selects a policy(ies) based on a transmission result(s) of the probe packet(s) (paragraph 0049 discloses probe policy is selected based on loss of packet, delay etc.).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Cai teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Cai further teaches wherein the probe part acquires a round-trip time (RTT) value(s) as a transmission result(s) of the probe packet(s); and wherein the policy selection part selects a policy(ies) based on the RTT value(s) (paragraph 0049 discloses probe policy is selected based on delay of the packet).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Cai teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Cai further teaches wherein the probe part acquires a node(s) through which the probe packet(s) has passed, as a transmission result(s) of the probe packet(s), and adds, based on the transmission result(s), the node(s) in the target node storage part (paragraph 0049 disclose acquiring the status of target node based on packet loss, delay etc. Paragraph 0051 discloses the event collector 140 stores all the events).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Cai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Cai further teaches wherein the probe part extracts a priority target node(s) that is probed preferentially over an initial probe target node(s) based on the status of the target node(s), and probes the priority target node(s) (paragraph 0049 discloses status of the second node 120 includes whether is master or slave. Paragraph 0066 discloses the first node 110 extract the identifier of the second node 120 Also see paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejection under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
claim 19 is directed towards a computer readable, non-transitory storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to execute the method of claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is directed towards a computer readable, non-transitory storage medium performing the monitoring method of claim 11. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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 5 , 6, 8, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Kim et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20180367947 A1), hereinafter, Kim.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Cai teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Cai does not teach further comprising a ranging and locating part that determines a distance(s) between a pair(s) of nodes in the network and locations of nodes, wherein the probe part acquires a node(s) through which the probe packet(s) has passed, as a transmission result(s) of the probe packet(s); and wherein the ranging and locating part uses the transmission result(s) to determine a distance(s) between a pair(s) of nodes in the network and locations of nodes.
Kim teaches further comprising a ranging and locating part that determines a distance(s) between a pair(s) of nodes in the network and locations of nodes, wherein the probe part acquires a node(s) through which the probe packet(s) has passed, as a transmission result(s) of the probe packet(s); and wherein the ranging and locating part uses the transmission result(s) to determine a distance(s) between a pair(s) of nodes in the network and locations of nodes (paragraph 0116 discloses determining distance based on RTT as stated “The network device 202 may also determine its distance from the network device 206 by determining the round-trip time (RTT) of a signal (not shown) it sends to the network device 206, which includes the time it takes for the signal transmitted from the network device 202 to the network device 206 to be received back at the network device 202.” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai to incorporate the teaching of Kim about determining distance based on RTT. One would be motivated to do that to prioritize device for monitoring based on location and location based service (see paragraph 0075 of Cai and paragraph 0004 of Kim).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Cai in views of Kim teach all the limitations of claim 5 as shown above.
Cai does not teach further comprising a node visualization part that visualizes nodes by placing the nodes on a map from a distance(s) between a pair(s) of nodes in the network and locations of nodes, and outputs the map, wherein the node visualization part visualizes the nodes on the map by using the locations of the nodes in the network and the distance(s) between the pair(s) of nodes determined by the ranging and locating part, and outputs the map.
Kim teaches further comprising a node visualization part that visualizes nodes by placing the nodes on a map from a distance(s) between a pair(s) of nodes in the network and locations of nodes, and outputs the map, wherein the node visualization part visualizes the nodes on the map by using the locations of the nodes in the network and the distance(s) between the pair(s) of nodes determined by the ranging and locating part, and outputs the map (paragraph 0172 discloses displaying a map with the network devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai to incorporate the teaching of Kim about displaying a map with the network devices. One would be motivated to do that to prioritize device for monitoring based on location and location based service (see paragraph 0075 of Cai and paragraph 0004 of Kim).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Cai teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as shown above.
Cai teaches wherein the probe part probes the target node(s) as a priority target node(s) (paragraph 0049 discloses status of the second node 120 includes whether is master or slave. Also see paragraph 0075).
Cai does not teach further comprising a target node selection part that selects a node(s) placed on a map as a target node(s); wherein the probe part probes the target node(s) as a priority target node(s).
Kim teaches further comprising a target node selection part that selects a node(s) placed on a map as a target node(s); wherein the probe part probes the target node(s) as a priority target node(s) (paragraph 0135 discloses selecting a device on a map as stated “In some embodiments, the graphical interface 600 may prompt the user to indicate the location of a device upon an icon of the device being displayed. For example, the icon of a device may be displayed when the device is powered on or reset. In some embodiments, the prompt may be displayed in response to a user selecting an icon of a device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai to incorporate the teaching of Kim about d selecting a device on a map. One would be motivated to do that to prioritize device for monitoring based on location and location based service (see paragraph 0075 of Cai and paragraph 0004 of Kim).
Claim 14 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Kim and further in view of Mason et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20150288590 A1), hereinafter, Mason.
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Cai in view of Kim teach all the limitations of claim 6 as shown above.
Cai does not teach wherein the probe part acquires, as a transmission result(s) of the probe packet(s), at least a round-trip time(s) between transmission of a probe packet(s) and reception of a response packet(s) in response to the probe packet(s), and estimates a load condition(s) of the target node(s) based on the round-trip time(s); and wherein the node visualization part executes visualization based on the load condition(s), superimposes the load condition(s) on the location(s) of the target node(s) on a map, and outputs the map.
Kim teaches wherein the probe part acquires, as a transmission result(s) of the probe packet(s), at least a round-trip time(s) between transmission of a probe packet(s) and reception of a response packet(s) in response to the probe packet(s) ;and wherein the node visualization part executes visualization based on the load condition(s), superimposes the load condition(s) on the location(s) of the target node(s) on a map, and outputs the map (paragraph 0116 discloses determining RTT based on the transmission time and receiving time of a signal as stated “The network device 202 may also determine its distance from the network device 206 by determining the round-trip time (RTT) of a signal (not shown) it sends to the network device 206, which includes the time it takes for the signal transmitted from the network device 202 to the network device 206 to be received back at the network device 202.” . paragraph 0172 discloses displaying a map with the network devices).
Mason teaches estimates a load condition(s) of the target node(s) based on the round-trip time(s) (paragraph 0060 disclose determining load state based on RTT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai to incorporate the teaching of Kim and Mason about determining load state based on RTT. One would be motivated to do that to prioritize device for monitoring based on location, location based service, and load for better load balancing (see paragraph 0075 of Cai and paragraph 0004 of Kim and paragraph 0001 of Mason).
Claim 18 is directed towards a monitoring method performed by the monitoring apparatus of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
November 22, 2025
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444