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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system.
Step 2A
The following limitations are directed to abstract ideas.
determine whether the intent graph data indicates a first network device and a second network device are configured for a common virtual network;
[This is a judgement that can be performed in the human mind]
in response to determining that the graph indicates the first network device and the second network device are configured for the common virtual network, determine a network anomaly based on a comparison of first endpoint information obtained from the first network device and second endpoint information obtained from the second network device
[This is a judgement that can be performed in the human mind]
The recited claim contains the following additional limitations:
a storage device configured to store intent graph data associated with a plurality of virtual networks and a plurality of network devices, wherein the intent graph data identifies, for each network device of the plurality of network devices, a subset of the plurality of virtual networks associated with the network device;
and processing circuitry in communication with the storage device, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
The storage device and processing circuitry are generic computing devices that are used as a tool to perform a mental process. The storage device of data is used in a conventional way where a human could perform mental or with pen and paper.
output an indication of the network anomaly.
[The output is an extra-solution activity used to display the judgement]
Upon considering the additional limitations, individually or in combination, they fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The storage database and generic computing components are used as tools to apply the recited judicial exception. The additional elements in combination do not recite an inventive concept. Claim 1 fails to recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For at least the above reason, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under similar rationale. The computer-readable medium is a generic computing component used to store the abstract idea. Storage on a generic component fails to recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recites:
wherein to determine the network anomaly, the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the first endpoint information does not include a medium access control (MAC) address included in the second endpoint information.
This limitation is an additional judgement step and fails to recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite:
apply, based on a decision tree, one or more debugging processes to the first network device and the second network device to generate the indication of the network anomaly.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite:
wherein the one or more debugging processes are a subset of a plurality of debugging processes and each of the plurality of debugging processes in the plurality of debugging processes is associated with a node of the decision tree.
Claims 5, 12 and 19,
wherein the indication of the network anomaly identifies one or more misconfigurations, software or hardware bugs, or both
The limitations of claims 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 recite additional judgement steps and fail to recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
to determine whether the intent graph data indicates the first network device and the second network device are configured for the common virtual network, the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the intent graph data includes a common virtual network identifier for the first network device and the second network device. The specificity of the data attribute fails to recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 14 recites:
periodically obtain endpoint information from the network devices.
This limitation is directed to a data-gathering step which is an extra-solution activity. The limitation fails to recite significantly more than an abstract idea
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachamadugu et al. U.S. Patent publication 10,992,543 in view of Dikshit et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2024/0022451.
Claims 1, 8 and 15,
Rachamadugu discloses
A system comprising:
a storage device configured to store intent graph data associated with a plurality of virtual networks and a plurality of network devices, wherein the intent graph data identifies, for each network device of the plurality of network devices, a subset of the plurality of virtual networks associated with the network device (Col 13 lines 5-14- collectors are provided to network devices of an existing computer network. In some embodiments, the collectors are agents or part of agents (e.g., software agents) installed onto network devices (e.g., agents associated with management server 102 of FIG. 1, management server 200 of FIG. 2, and management server 402 of FIG. 4). The collectors may be configured to gather various telemetry and configuration data used to reverse engineer intent. Examples of collected data include information associated with device operational status, connectivity between devices, hostnames, LLDP details, BGP details, interfaces, MLAG, VLAN details, VRF, and multicast details. In some embodiments, the type of data collected (and thus the collectors) depends on a reference network type. For example, in an L3 Clos (leaf-spine) design, VRF and multicast details may be required whereas they might not be for a Layer 2 design. ); and
and output an indication of a network anomaly (col 19- 48- provides error to user).
Rachamadugu disclose a computer-readable medium in Col 2, lines 10-11.
Although Rachamadugu discloses substantial limitations of the invention, it fails to disclose:
processing circuitry in communication with the storage device, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine whether the intent graph data indicates a first network device and a second network device are configured for a common virtual network; in response to determining that the graph indicates the first network device and the second network device are configured for the common virtual network, determine a network anomaly based on a comparison of first endpoint information obtained from the first network device and second endpoint information obtained from the second network device.
In an analogous art, Dikshit discloses
processing circuitry in communication with the storage device, wherein the processing circuitry (para 0066- processor) is configured to:
determine whether [data] indicates a first network device and a second network device are configured for a common virtual network (para 0054- discloses the comparison of VNI to determine whether the source device and peer device are part of the same Virtual Network) ;
in response to determining that the [data] indicates the first network device and the second network device are configured for the common virtual network (fig. 4 item 406), determine a network anomaly based on a comparison of first endpoint information obtained from the first network device and second endpoint information obtained from the second network device (para 0062 the switch may compare the export RT in the loop detect packet with each of a plurality of import RTs associated with a corresponding VLAN configured in the peer VTEP. Thus, the export RT in the loop detect packet is compared with import RTs of each of the VLANs configured in the switch. In this step it is checked that whether the export RT in the loop detect packet matches with an import RT for any of the VLANs configured in the peer VTEP. If the export RT matches with an import RT for any of the VLANs in the peer VTEP, it may be understood that a VXLAN tunnel is configured between the source VTEP and the peer VTEP. Also see Fig. 4, item 410 & 414)
Dikshit disclose a method of comparing VTEP attributes to determine whether anomalous activity [traffic loop] is occurring. Dikshit does not explicitly disclose applying analysis to the topological data of an intent graph. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to apply the anomaly detection of Dikshit to the Rachamadugu system to produce the predictable result of identifying loops with the intent graph of VTEPs.
Claims 6, 13 and 20,
wherein to determine whether the intent graph data indicates the first network device and the second network device are configured for the common virtual network, the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the intent graph data includes a common virtual network identifier for the first network device and the second network device. (Dikshit para 0054)
Same motivation as claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachamadugu et al. U.S. Patent publication 10,992,543 in view of Dikshit et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2024/0022451 in view of Berg U.S. Patent Application publication 2024/0281360.
Claims 3, 10 and 17,
Although Rachamadugu/Dikshit discloses substantial limitations of the invention, it fails to disclose:
apply, based on a decision tree, one or more debugging processes to the first network device and the second network device to generate the indication of the network anomaly.
In an analogous art, Berk discloses
apply, based on a decision tree, one or more debugging processes an anomaly (para 0011-decision tree of a debugging process)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to apply the decision tree of Berk to the Rachamadugu/Dikshit system to produce the predictable result of debugging the errors of the configuration of the network devices.
Claims 4, 11 and 18,
wherein the one or more debugging processes are a subset of a plurality of debugging processes and each of the plurality of debugging processes in the plurality of debugging processes is associated with a node of the decision tree. (Berk para 0011,)
Same motivation as claim 3.
Claims 5, 12 and 19,
wherein the indication of the network anomaly identifies one or more misconfigurations, software or hardware bugs, or both (Berk para 0011, Dikshit para 0064- a tunnel loop is a software configuration error ).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to apply the decision tree of Berk to the Rachamadugu/Dikshit system to produce the predictable result of debugging the errors of the configuration of the network devices.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachamadugu et al. U.S. Patent publication 10,992,543 in view of Dikshit et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2024/0022451 in view of Official Notice.
Claims 7 and 14,
Although Rachamadugu/Dikshit discloses substantial limitations of the invention, it fails to disclose:
periodically obtain endpoint information from the network devices.
Examiner takes official notice that periodic discovery of network endpoint information was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine periodic discovery of network attributes with the Rachamadugu/Dikshit system to produce the predictable result of updating the topology information to ensure current network information is analyzed for anomalies.
Conclusion
Related Prior Art:
Subramanian et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2024/0380670- discloses a method to identify network anomalies by analyzing network endpoint attributes.
Agrawal et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2022/0294715- discloses a method to monitor network communication to determine network anomalies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M COUSINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7746. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00pm 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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/JMC/Examiner, Art Unit 2459