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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shetty et al. (9,100,236).
For claim 1, Shetty teaches a failover connection monitoring and validation system (abstract; background, summary and claims), comprising:
a server (col. 6, line 65 – col. 7, line 5; mobile gateway);
a probe (col. 12, lines 10-35) configured to issue routed packets (col. 6, lines 40-65); and
a policy routing system (col. 9, line 50 – col. 10, line 5) configured to route the routed packets (col. 6, line 65 – col. 7, line 20) for gateway resolution via the server (col. 14, lines 30-60; resolve topology, packet processing/forwarding).
For claim 2, Shetty teaches a platform adapted to gather performance data on multiple internet connections simultaneously (col. 13, line 45 – col. 14, line 20).
For claim 6, Shetty teaches a firewall (col. 12, lines 50-67).
For claim 8, Shetty teaches the probe is software or firmware-based (col. 12, lines 10-35; sending of probe packets).
For claim 9, Shetty teaches that the probe is in electronic communication with a firewall (col. 16, line 60 – col. 17, line 30).
For claim 10, Shetty teaches a firewall (col. 12, lines 50-67).
For claim 11, Shetty teaches that the firewall is configured to enforce policy routing (col. 8, lines 30-40).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison et al. (9,491,122).
For claim 3, Shetty does not expressly disclose the elements of the validation system. Morrison teaches a validation system, wherein the validation system is configured to provide connection validation for backup internet connections while they are otherwise not in use for primary internet traffic flows (col. 12, lines 25-40). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Morrison in order to provide improvements to fault tolerance in multi-network systems (col. 1, lines 40-60).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty and Morrison as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kozat et al. (2015/0,249,587).
For claim 4, Shetty and Morrison do not expressly disclose a secure system capable of making backup internet connection validations out-of-band. Kozat teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (Paras 50-51, 62). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Kozat in order to provide improvements to the system (background).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verkaik et al. (10,061,664).
For claim 5, Shetty does not expressly disclose a failover appliance. Verkaik teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 35). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Verkaik in order to provide improvements to automating failure handling (col. 1, lines 10-35).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bugenhagen (8,577,722).
For claim 7, Shetty does not expressly disclose that the probe is an installable device. Bugenhagen teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 15, lines 5-67; col 21, lines 15-50). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Bugenhagen in order to provide improvements to the probe setup (background).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (2015/0,309,894).
For claim 12, Shetty does not expressly disclose that the server is a cloud server. Zhou teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (Paras 17-18). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Zhou in order to provide improvements to handling traffic flows (Para 1).
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty as applied to similar independent claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramachandran et al. (9,686,127).
For claim 13, Shetty teaches a LAN (col. 5, lines 30-65) connection monitoring and validation system (abstract, background, summary and claims), comprising:
a server (col. 6, line 65 – col. 7, line 5; mobile gateway);
a local probe (col. 12, lines 10-35); and
a firewall (col. 12, lines 50-67) in operational communication with the local probe (col. 16, line 60 – col. 17, line 30) and server via a primary connection and a secondary connection (col. 10, lines 10-50),
wherein the local probe is configured to issue packets (col. 6, lines 40-65) utilizing policy routing (col. 9, line 50 – col. 10, line 5) to route and number (col. 20, lines 25-55) packets via the primary connection and secondary connection (col. 6, line 65 – col. 7, line 20) for resolution at the cloud server (col. 14, lines 30-60; resolve topology, packet processing/forwarding).
Shetty does not expressly disclose that the server is a cloud server, nor that the packets are labeled. Ramachandran teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that discloses that the server is a cloud server (col. 16, lines 25-40), nor that the packets are labeled (col. 30, lines 20-50). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Ramachandran in order to provide improvements to failovers in large enterprises (col. 1, lines 15-45).
For claim 14, Shetty teaches the LAN is configured to failover to the secondary connection when the primary connection is interrupted (col. 17, lines 10-30).
For claim 16, Shetty does not expressly disclose the system is configured to assess congestion via a summing approach. Ramachandran teaches this limitation (col. 50, line 60 – col. 52, line 45).
For claim 17, Shetty does not expressly disclose that the system is configured to balance traffic via the primary and secondary connections. Ramachandran teaches this limitation (col. 65, lines 15-40).
For claim 18, Shetty teaches that the server is configured to generate outage alerts (col. 18, lines 30-55).
For claim 20, Shetty teaches that the server is configured to record network performance data (col. 10, lines 50-67).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty and Ramachandran as applied to claim14 above, and further in view of Griswold et al. (9,755,889).
For claim 15, Shetty does not expressly disclose the LAN is configured to failback to the primary connection when connectivity is restored. Griswold teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 9, lines 30-67). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Griswold in order to improve enterprise disruption handling (col. 3, lines 5-35).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty and Ramachandran as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kamath et al. (8,335,943).
For claim 19, Shetty and Ramachandran do not expressly disclose that the server is configured to identify packet latency and induce failover. Kamath teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) where that the server is configured to identify packet latency (col. 13, lines 25-60; and induce failover (col. 52, line 50 – col. 53, line 10). At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Kamath in order to provide improvements to the failover system (background).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights