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 .
Claims 1 to 20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 05-03-2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202441035263 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 to 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monier et al. (USPA 2020/0007425) in view of Devarajan et al. (USP 11,637,766) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monier et al. in view of Devarajan et al.
Claim 20:
Monier substantially teaches the claimed invention. Monier teaches a network architecture (100) for communicating messages in an IP network, through multiple network communication devices, the network architecture comprising: a probe source device (102) communicating traceroute and logging network data for performing diagnostics and receive and store such network associated data for performing network diagnostics (see par. 0029). Monier teaches that a tunnel entrance device (104) serving as a tunnel source endpoint for tunneling and sending IP messages to a downstream device during normal operation (see par. 0030). Monier teaches that the probe source device and the entrance devie are in communication with one onother via an area network (AN) (106) (see par. 0031).
Monier teaches that the tunnel entrance device may send the tunneled IP message downstream to a device and the device downstream may be a tunneled intermediate device (110) disposed within a routing tunnel of an IP network between the tunnel entrance device and one or more probe destination devices (114) (see fig. 6, and par. 0091). Monier teaches that the tunnel entrance device may receive an error message from the downstream device (see par. 0092). Monier teaches that the error message may be an ICMPv6 port unreachable packet and may comprise a source address and a destination address (see par. 0092).
Monier teaches that a new error message is generated based on an address spoofing method that sets the received source address as the source address of the new error message to of the downstream device (see par. 0093). Monier teaches that the tunnel entrance device sends the new error message to the probe source device (see par. 0094). Monier teaches that the communication method and device utilize an IPv6 or IPv4 routing protocol, RPL and/or another protocol (see par. 0049).
Monier fails to specifically teach the limitation of a second network device that utilizes a second network protocol; however, Devarajan in an analogous art teaches that an application can send a restful MTR request to an enforcement node (150) which includes the destination address and port in case of TCP/UDP MTR and includes the MTR type; TCP, UDP or ICMP (see col. 26, lines 10 et seq.). Devarajan teaches that a message and a reply communicated between a client and an application may include a "Type-Length-Value" (TLV) in an ICMP request and reply messages (see col. 26, lines 10 to 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Monier to include the limitation of the request and reply messages operating with different protocols such as TCP/UDP and ICMP as taught by Devarajan because Devarajan teaches that techniques for detecting packet loss and delays in a network includes an application sending ICMP traceroute with IP address to a client using different protocols such as an TCP/UDP and an ICMP. This modification would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ techniques for detecting network delays and packet loss by applying a traceroute between a client and an application based on utilizing different protocols over a network as taught by Devarajan (see col. 18, lines 24 et seq.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4-15-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments concerning the previously rejected claim the following comments are made:
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s representative that the prior art fails to teach every limitation of the claim because the claim was rejected in light of giving the claim the broadest reasonable interpretation, thus, all the limitations of the claim were addressed in the rejection. The examiner would like to point out that the amendment to claim 20 has amended the preamble of the claim with the phrase “network tracing” however, this amendment fails to give meaning to the body of the claim, especially, when the preamble is not given patentable weight, it has no effect on the body of the claim if removed. Therefore, the amendment of the claim with the phrase “networking tracing” does not change the claim scope thus, the claim is rejected as being obvious over the prior art made of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 to 19 are allowed.
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 SHELLY A CHASE whose telephone number is (571)272-3816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-5:30, 2nd Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Albert Decady can be reached at 571-272 3819. 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.
/Shelly A Chase/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights