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 § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galea et (US 2017/0237512 A1, IDS) in view of Thangavel et al (US 2020/0382404 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Galea ‘512 discloses a method (see, estimating the difference in propagation delay between the first and the second redundant networks based on a difference between respective receipt times of redundant SYNC messages, section 0018-00, 0022) comprising: receiving (see, SYNC messages or PTP messages between the nodes/PRP nodes, section 0074, 0078-0079), from a first link redundancy entity (LRE) (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, see, LREm in network device 156) and by a second LRE (fig. 1, A to fig. 1B, LREs coupled between redundant network A, redundant network B,s section 0077-0078), a first instance of a packet (see, time of receipt of the message/measured time of receipt message/timestamp value of message exchange, section 0099, 0118) and a second instance of the packet (see, time receipt of the message from a second redundant of network, section 0042-0044), the first instance of the packet having a timestamp (see, respective timestamp of the respective messages, section 0079-0081) and transmitted via a first network (see, claim 8-11, fig. 1A to fig. 1B, redundant network A), the second instance of the packet having the timestamp (see, timestamp t2 of the message in relation to access redundant network B, section 0079-0081) and transmitted via a second network (see, claim 8-11, fig. 1A tom fig. 1B, redundant network B), wherein the timestamp indicates a time when the first LRE transmitted the first instance of the packet (section 0118-time of receipt of message from first redundant network) and the second instance of the packet (section 0118-time of receipt of delay/time); recording (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118), by the second LRE(see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118), a first arrival time for the first instance of the packet (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118); recording (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118),, by the second LRE (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160) network device 158, a second arrival time for the second instance of the packet (section 0086-0087, 0118-the SYNC message is repeated/redundant which means implicitly a recording a time of receipt of that message); determining (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160), by the second LRE (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160), a first latency for [[the first instance]] of the packet; determining, by the second LRE (noted: the operation may be effected by a network device such as PRP/HSR device/LREm and LREs, section, 0078-0079, 0115), a second latency [[for the second instance]] of the packet; and based at least in part on the first latency and the second latency (noted: propagation delay with respect to the receipt time of the messages associated with redundant networks means there are variable delays, section 0018-0020, 0022), determining, by the second LRE (noted: the operation may be effected by a network device such as PRP/HSR device, section 0115), a performance difference between the first network and the second network (see, estimating the difference in propagation delay between the first and the second redundant networks based on a difference between respective receipt times of redundant SYNC messages, section 0018-00, 0022).
Galea ‘512 discloses all the claim limitations above but fails to explicitly disclose: determining, by the second LRE, a first latency for the first instance of the packet; determining, by the second LRE, a second latency for the second instance of the packet.
However, Thangavel et al (US 2020/0382404 A1) from a similar field of endeavor (see, two-way active measurement network performance of links and/or network paths suing test packets, section 0038, 0042, 0045, 0083-0084, noted: multiple access networks/conventional networks, section 0026-0030) discloses: determining (see, network devices (noted: one of them can a second device), which determines the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-042), by the second LRE, a first latency for the first instance of the packet (see, determined the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-0042); determining, by the second LRE, a second latency for the second instance of the packet (see, determined the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-042, 0045, 0041-mutliple instances, see, based on performance measurements/metrics (i.e., latency measurements, jitter , path delay, round-trip time, load measurements on the received metrics) to select to select network paths/links to forward traffic, section 0038, 0045).
In view of the above, it 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 to modify the parallel redundancy network system in which the propagation difference between the redundant networks of Galea ‘512 with the two-way active measurement in which the metrics derived the test packets are used to determine network performance as taught by Thangavel ‘504. The motivation would have been to provide selection of different network paths to forward traffic based on the calculated metrics.
Regarding claim 2, Galea ‘512 as modified by Thangavel ‘404 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the timestamp is added to a parallel redundancy protocol (PRP) header or a high-availability seamless redundancy (HSR) tag of the first instance of the packet and the second instance of the packet (see, parallel redundancy protocol (PRP) and High-availability seamless redundancy (HSR) protocol, section 0037, 0061, noted: the HSR and PRP implicitly include the use of a tag or header to the packet as IEC 62439-3 standard, Thangavel, see, metrics embedded within the test packets, section 0006, 0009-0011,. 0045).
In view of the above, it 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 to modify the parallel redundancy network system in which the propagation difference between the redundant networks of Galea ‘512 with the two-way active measurement in which the metrics derived the test packets are used to determine network performance as taught by Thangavel ‘504. The motivation would have been to provide selection of different network paths to forward traffic based on the calculated metrics.
Regarding claim 3, Galea ‘512 as modified by Thangavel ‘404 discloses further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining (see, instance of test packets, section 0093), by the second LRE, that the first instance of the packet is lost if the first instance of the packet is not received within a predetermined amount of time of the second instance of the packet (see, (i.e., measurements, round-trip time (RTT), path delay, packet jitter, latency measurements, packet loss, section 0040-0041) of the test packets (section 0010-0012); and determining metrics for packet loss for the first network (see, each network uses metrics to computer network performance metrics (i.e., jitter using the time stamps between packets), packet loss, section 0040-0041, 0057-0061).
Regarding claim 4, Galea ‘512 as modified by Thangavel ‘404 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the second LRE, the first latency and the second latency (see, (i.e., measurements, round-trip time (RTT), path delay, packet jitter, latency measurements, packet loss, section 0040-0041) of the test packets (section 0010-0012) to an analytics tool (see, the metrics, from first device and second device, the server then use to compute the round trip time (RTT) of the test packet, section 0058-061).
Regarding claim 6, Galea ‘512 as modified by Thangavel ‘404 discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the analytics tool utilizes the first latency, the second latency (see, the metrics, from first device and second device, the server then use to compute the R round trip time of the test packet, section 0058-061), and other telemetry data including bandwidth (see, e, (i.e., measurements, round-trip time (RTT), path delay, packet jitter, latency measurements, packet loss, section 0040-0041) of the test packets (section 0010-0012), network traffic data, network hardware differences, and network software differences to analyze the first network and the second network (Galea, see, estimating the difference in propagation delay between the first and the second redundant networks based on a difference between respective receipt times of redundant SYNC messages, section 0018-00, 0022, Thangavel, see, performance measurements with multiple network paths/different links, section 0045-0046).
Regarding claim 7, Galea ‘512 as modified by Thangavel ‘404 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second LRE collects data on frame pairs for each sequence number in a time series (Galea, section 0152-0158-the second device/LRE, Thangavel, see, test packets (i.e., first set of test packets, second test of packets, third set of test packets, section 0060-0061, 0064-0065) with first metric, second metric and third metric where the second device determines network performance, section 0039-0041, 0044-0046, 0057-0058).
In view of the above, it 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 to modify the parallel redundancy network system in which the propagation difference between the redundant networks of Galea ‘512 with the two-way active measurement in which the metrics derived the test packets are used to determine network performance as taught by Thangavel ‘504. The motivation would have been to provide selection of different network paths to forward traffic based on the calculated metrics.
Regarding claim 8, Galea ‘512 discloses a system (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LRE nodes attached to each respective redundant network) comprising: one or more processors (see, network devices which may be effected by one or more microprocessors executing instructions read from volatile or non-volatiles memory/computer readable media, section 0171); and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that (see, network devices which may be effected by one or more microprocessors executing instructions read from volatile or non-volatiles memory/computer readable media, section 0171, 0080-the LRE nodes coupled to each of the respective redundant networks, the LREs comprise hardware, firmware, one or more processors executing instructions loaded from memory) when executed by the one or more processors (see, network devices which may be effected by one or more microprocessors executing instructions read from volatile or non-volatiles memory/computer readable media, section 0171), cause the one or more processors (0080-the LRE nodes coupled to each of the respective redundant networks, the LREs comprise hardware, firmware, one or more processors executing instructions loaded from memory) to perform operations (see, estimating the difference in propagation delay between the first and the second redundant networks based on a difference between respective receipt times of redundant SYNC messages, section 0018-00, 0022) comprising: receiving (see, SYNC messages or PTP messages between the nodes/PRP nodes, section 0074, 0078-0079), from a first link redundancy entity (LRE) (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, see, LREm in network device 156) and by a second LRE (fig. 1, A to fig. 1B, LREs coupled between redundant network A, redundant network B,s section 0077-0078), a first instance of a packet (see, time of receipt of the message/measured time of receipt message/timestamp value of message exchange, section 0099, 0118) and a second instance of the packet (see, time receipt of the message from a second redundant of network, section 0042-0044), the first instance of the packet having a timestamp (see, respective timestamp of the respective messages, section 0079-0081) and transmitted via a first network (see, claim 8-11, fig. 1A to fig. 1B, redundant network A), the second instance of the packet having the timestamp (see, timestamp t2 of the message in relation to access redundant network B, section 0079-0081) and transmitted via a second network (see, claim 8-11, fig. 1A tom fig. 1B, redundant network B), wherein the timestamp indicates a time when the first LRE transmitted the first instance of the packet (section 0118-time of receipt of message from first redundant network) and the second instance of the packet (section 0118-time of receipt of delay/time); recording (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118), by the second LRE(see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118), a first arrival time for the first instance of the packet (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118); recording (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118),, by the second LRE (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160) network device 158, a second arrival time for the second instance of the packet (section 0086-0087, 0118-the SYNC message is repeated/redundant which means implicitly a recording a time of receipt of that message); determining (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160), by the second LRE (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160), a first latency for [[the first instance]] of the packet; determining, by the second LRE (noted: the operation may be effected by a network device such as PRP/HSR device/LREm and LREs, section, 0078-0079, 0115), a second latency [[for the second instance]] of the packet; and based at least in part on the first latency and the second latency (noted: propagation delay with respect to the receipt time of the messages associated with redundant networks means there are variable delays, section 0018-0020, 0022), determining, by the second LRE (noted: the operation may be effected by a network device such as PRP/HSR device, section 0115), a performance difference between the first network and the second network (see, estimating the difference in propagation delay between the first and the second redundant networks based on a difference between respective receipt times of redundant SYNC messages, section 0018-00, 0022).
Galea ‘512 discloses all the claim limitations above but fails to explicitly disclose: determining, a first latency for the first instance of the packet; determining, , a second latency for the second instance of the packet.
However, Thangavel et al (US 2020/0382404 A1) from a similar field of endeavor (see, two-way active measurement network performance of links and/or network paths suing test packets, section 0038, 0042, 0045, 0083-0084, noted: multiple access networks/conventional networks, section 0026-0030) discloses: determining (see, network devices (noted: one of them can a second device), which determines the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-042), a first latency for the first instance of the packet (see, determined the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-0042); determining, , a second latency for the second instance of the packet (see, determined the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-042, 0045, 0041-mutliple instances, see, based on performance measurements/metrics (i.e., latency measurements, jitter , path delay, round-trip time, load measurements on the received metrics) to select to select network paths/links to forward traffic, section 0038, 0045).
In view of the above, it 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 to modify the parallel redundancy network system in which the propagation difference between the redundant networks of Galea ‘512 with the two-way active measurement in which the metrics derived the test packets are used to determine network performance as taught by Thangavel ‘504. The motivation would have been to provide selection of different network paths to forward traffic based on the calculated metrics.
Regarding claim 15, Galea ‘512 discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that (see, network devices which may be effected by one or more microprocessors executing instructions read from volatile or non-volatiles memory/computer readable media, section 0171, 0080-the LRE nodes coupled to each of the respective redundant networks, the LREs comprise hardware, firmware, one or more processors executing instructions loaded from memory, section 0080), when executed, cause one or more processors (0080-the LRE nodes coupled to each of the respective redundant networks, the LREs comprise hardware, firmware, one or more processors executing instructions loaded from memory) to perform operations (see, network devices which may be effected by one or more microprocessors executing instructions read from volatile or non-volatiles memory/computer readable media, section 0171, see, estimating the difference in propagation delay between the first and the second redundant networks based on a difference between respective receipt times of redundant SYNC messages, section 0018-00, 0022) comprising: receiving (see, SYNC messages or PTP messages between the nodes/PRP nodes, section 0074, 0078-0079), from a first link redundancy entity (LRE) (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, see, LREm in network device 156) and by a second LRE (fig. 1, A to fig. 1B, LREs coupled between redundant network A, redundant network B,s section 0077-0078), a first instance of a packet (see, time of receipt of the message/measured time of receipt message/timestamp value of message exchange, section 0099, 0118) and a second instance of the packet (see, time receipt of the message from a second redundant of network, section 0042-0044), the first instance of the packet having a timestamp (see, respective timestamp of the respective messages, section 0079-0081) and transmitted via a first network (see, claim 8-11, fig. 1A to fig. 1B, redundant network A), the second instance of the packet having the timestamp (see, timestamp t2 of the message in relation to access redundant network B, section 0079-0081) and transmitted via a second network (see, claim 8-11, fig. 1A tom fig. 1B, redundant network B), wherein the timestamp indicates a time when the first LRE transmitted the first instance of the packet (section 0118-time of receipt of message from first redundant network) and the second instance of the packet (section 0118-time of receipt of delay/time); recording (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118), by the second LRE(see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118), a first arrival time for the first instance of the packet (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118); recording (see, recording a time of receipt message of the SYNC message, section 0118),, by the second LRE (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160) network device 158, a second arrival time for the second instance of the packet (section 0086-0087, 0118-the SYNC message is repeated/redundant which means implicitly a recording a time of receipt of that message); determining (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160), by the second LRE (fig. 1A to fig. 1B, LREs in network deice 158, section 0078-0079-the operation can be effected by LRE-s and LREm, 0082-0083, 0160), a first latency for [[the first instance]] of the packet; determining, by the second LRE (noted: the operation may be effected by a network device such as PRP/HSR device/LREm and LREs, section, 0078-0079, 0115), a second latency [[for the second instance]] of the packet; and based at least in part on the first latency and the second latency (noted: propagation delay with respect to the receipt time of the messages associated with redundant networks means there are variable delays, section 0018-0020, 0022), determining, by the second LRE (noted: the operation may be effected by a network device such as PRP/HSR device, section 0115), a performance difference between the first network and the second network (see, estimating the difference in propagation delay between the first and the second redundant networks based on a difference between respective receipt times of redundant SYNC messages, section 0018-00, 0022).
Galea ‘512 discloses all the claim limitations above but fails to explicitly disclose: determining, a first latency for the first instance of the packet; determining, , a second latency for the second instance of the packet.
However, Thangavel et al (US 2020/0382404 A1) from a similar field of endeavor (see, two-way active measurement network performance of links and/or network paths suing test packets, section 0038, 0042, 0045, 0083-0084, noted: multiple access networks/conventional networks, section 0026-0030) discloses: determining (see, network devices (noted: one of them can a second device), which determines the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-042), a first latency for the first instance of the packet (see, determined the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-0042); determining, , a second latency for the second instance of the packet (see, determined the network performance using exchange of test packets, the test packets are used to determine path delay, jitter, latency measurements, round trip time between the network devices, section 0038, 0040-042, 0045, 0041-mutliple instances, see, based on performance measurements/metrics (i.e., latency measurements, jitter , path delay, round-trip time, load measurements on the received metrics) to select to select network paths/links to forward traffic, section 0038, 0045).
In view of the above, it 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 to modify the parallel redundancy network system in which the propagation difference between the redundant networks of Galea ‘512 with the two-way active measurement in which the metrics derived the test packets are used to determine network performance as taught by Thangavel ‘504. The motivation would have been to provide selection of different network paths to forward traffic based on the calculated metrics.
Regarding claims 9, 16, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above because the claims substantially comprise the same limitations.
Regarding claims 10, 17, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above because the claims substantially comprise the same limitations.
Regarding claims 11, 18, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above because the claims substantially comprise the same limitations.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above because the claims substantially comprise the same limitations.
Claims 5, 12, 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galea et (US 2017/0237512 A1, IDS) in view of Thangavel et al (US 2020/0382404 A1) as applied to claim 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of SACHs et al (US 2020/0259896 A1).
The combination of Galea ‘512 and Thangavel ‘404 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 4, wherein the analytics tool is a cloud-based service, on-prem at a customer, or localized within the second LRE as an edge application.
Regarding claim 12, the system of claim 11, wherein the analytics tool is a cloud-based service, on-prem at a customer, or localized within the second LRE as an edge application.
Regarding claim 19, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein the analytics tool is a cloud-based service, on-prem at a customer, or localized within the second LRE as an edge application.
However, SACHs ‘896 from a similar field of endeavor (see, Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP), section 1176, see, algorithm to maximize or minimize network performance metrics such as overall network latency path latency, network throughput, section 2236 ) discloses: Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 4, wherein the analytics tool (see, cloud based real-time analytics, section 0327-0329, 0685, noted: non-transitory computer readable, section 1288 ) is a cloud-based service (se, on-site edge cloud, section 0684), on-prem at a customer, or localized within the second LRE (see, cloud-based system and in edge computing system distributed over several nodes, section 1995) as an edge application (SACHs, 2020/0259896 A1, section 0327-0335, 0685, 01172-1176, 1571, 1575-1584-offset measurement between devices , 1575-1584, 0676, 0684-on-edge cloud, 1995, 0349-edge cloud).
In view of the above, it 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 to modify the combined parallel redundancy network system in which the propagation difference between the redundant networks of Galea ‘512 and the two-way active measurement in which the metrics derived the test packets are used to determine network performance of Thangavel by implementing the cloud-based analytic device as taught by Sachs ‘896 into the second LRE device of Galea. The motivation would have been to provide real-time monitoring of network conditions.
Regarding claims 12, 19, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 as discussed above because the aforementioned claims comprise the same limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior arts either singularly or in combination fail to reasonably anticipate or render obvious “wherein the analytics tool utilizes the first latency, the second latency, and other telemetry data including bandwidth, network traffic data, network hardware differences, and network software differences to analyze the first network and the second network” recited in claim 6, 13 and 20 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KIESSLING et al (US 2014/0040657 A1) discloses parallel redundancy protocol (section 0007-0057) in multiple subnetworks for handling failure, configuring of the network topology information.
Cui et al (US 2021/0274367 A1) discloses latency for first time for transmission of echo packet (see, traceroute echo packet comprises a first timestamp field and second timestamp field, first information indication of a first time of the transmission of the traceroute echo packet, section 025-0026), second time for transmission of the echo packet (see, second timestamp field comprise second information indication of a second time of receipt of the traceroute echo packet, section 0024-0027) and determine of downlink latency based on a difference between a received time of the reply and second identified time (section 0076, 0047-0060).
APATHOTHARANAN et al (US 2016/0226742 A1) discloses monitoring performance parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss) along the path (section 0040-0043).
MARUYAMA et al (US 2016/0277288 A1) discloses…… (HSR tag or PRP tag), see, section 0068-0140.
KAKADIA et al (US 2015/0023170 A1) discloses network analytics device that measuring traffic of packets captured by a network tap, the packets captured are associated with timestamp representing the time at which packet travelled (section 0031-0067).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANDAL ELPENORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3123. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6 pm 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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 571 272-3182. 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.
/CANDAL ELPENORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights