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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 09/26/2024 to the claims and specification has been fully considered and is entered. Claims 1-13 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1 and 9-10, the language “has been brought into an inoperative state” suggests intentional action that renders the device inoperable involving a human factor, however, the is no description in the specification as to what “bringing into” entails. In particular, while paragraph [0026] (as published) defines what “inoperative state” might be which is “a state in which the network device does not operate normally due to a failure of a component, a defect of software, a resource shortage of the network device, or the like”, and generally mentions “detecting the inoperative state”. There is no discussion of what “has been brought into” entails such as to result in the inoperative state. As understood, failure of a component, a defect of software, a resource shortage or the like are all unintended events and are not a result of a deliberate action of bringing the device into the inoperable state, as the claim suggests.
If Applicants do not intent the language “has been brought into an inoperative state” to suggest any particular action that results in the inoperative state, Applicants are advised to amend the language to simply state “detecting that a network device being monitored is in an inoperative state”.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 3, it is unclear what is being meant by “perform work of console connection” and what “instruct” entails such that to affect this operation of “perform[ing]”.
As to claim 4, it is unclear how a management terminal is connected (if at all) to the network monitoring device in order for the network monitoring device to detect the abnormality information from console output information output (that is contained in the management terminal) based on the proposed configuration of elements in the claim.
As to claim 5, this claim contains a conditional limitation “in a case where the abnormality information is included”. However, claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, positively requires detecting abnormality information indicating an abnormality. Therefore, claim 5 attempts to broaden the claim scope by making detecting conditional, which is not allowed.
As to claim 6, it is unclear what the character string is collated with.
As to claim 8, it is unclear whether the “instruct” operation is the same as the “instruct” operation recited in claim 1 and why would two devices perform the same “instruct”. It also appears that the management terminal instructs a task to perform console connection with itself unless “a management terminal” is another terminal distinct from the management terminal comprising a second memory and a second processor. It is also unclear which element is “remote management”.
As to claim 9, it is unclear how a method causes a computer to execute operations. In particular, it appears that the claim is directed to a method of a computer to execute operations, not a method that performs the listed operations. Applicants are advised to amend the preamble to state “a network monitoring method, comprising:”.
As to claim 10, it is unclear how a program causes a computer to execute operations. In particular, it appears that the claim is directed to a program that causes a computer to execute operations, not a program that performs the listed operations, when executed by a computer processor. Applicants are advised to amend the preamble to state “storing a program containing computer instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the computer to perform operations, comprising:”.
As to claim 11, it is unclear why the management terminal would perform the same function that is already performed by the network monitoring device in claim 4, from which claim 11 depends. It is also unclear which element is “remote management”.
As to claim 12, it is unclear why the management terminal would perform the same function that is already performed by the network monitoring device in claim 5, from which claim 12 depends. It is also unclear which element is “remote management”. This claim also includes the same issues discussed per claim 5 above.
As to claim 13, it is unclear which element is “remote management”.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1 and 9-10, these claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter, thus falling within the defined statutory categories of invention (step 1 of the 101 analysis is YES). The claims describe a concept of detecting that a device in inoperative by monitoring device activity and instructing the device with a task to make a console connection, as claimed. These operations are deemed to be mental processes and processes performed by a human, which, while being claimed as implemented by a generic processor executing instructions stored in memory, do not require a special purpose computer to perform the claimed steps and are capable to be performed in the human mind including a perception (hearing), evaluation, judgement, and opinion (step 2A prong one is YES).
In particular, step of detecting can be performed in the human mind visually by noticing that the network device (such as a router discussed in the specification) does not display any blinking green lights that are commonly used by the router to show its operative state. Step of instructing, to the network device, a task including console connection can be performed by the human audibly by telling an IT specialist or any other human operator to connect the inoperative router to a diagnostics tool such as laptop computer (claimed management terminal) by a wire (such as Ethernet cord) as is normally done when diagnosing malfunctioning routers.
There is nothing in the claim that would require a special computer processing to accomplish these tasks that would be unreasonable to perform in a human mind in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, Examiner determined that each of the claimed steps can be reasonably handled by a human without undue effort. The claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (step 2A prong two is NO). In particular, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea is the generic recitation of a processor of the network monitoring device. However, this element is described at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than using a generic computer to perform the abstract steps. The claim does not recite any specific, non-conventional arrangement of hardware, any particular algorithm or data structure for making the detection and decision to instruct a task, nor any concrete improvement to the functioning of the equipment or the network (for example, an improvement tied to particular operations). Performance of a device monitoring and diagnosing malfunctioning network equipment has been notoriously old and well known as a tool. Because the claim merely instructs implementation of the abstract idea using conventional computer components, the additional recited elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore does not confer patent eligibility.
The claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2B is NO). Therefore, the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. As discussed above, reciting a generic “processor” and “memory” and performing routine steps of detecting an instructing amount to no more than applying the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Mere invocation of generic computer components to automate an abstract process cannot supply an inventive concept. Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 10 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-13 further define existing steps (via “wherein” clauses) and recite additional steps that can still be reasonably performed by the human mind without requiring a computer to perform the tasks. None of the dependent claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov (US Patent 11,048,496 B1) in view of Donlan et al. (US 2018/0287801 A1).
As to claim 1, Zakharov teaches a network monitoring device [analytical server 130] (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first memory storing instructions (col. 21 lines 18-39); and
at least one first processor configured to execute the instructions (col. 21 line 56 to col. 22 line 4) to:
detect that a network device being monitored has been brought into an inoperative state [monitor network connected devices for failure events] (steps. 404, 406; col. 14 lines 10-20). (It is noted that this interpretation is consistent with specification where the detecting unit detects that the device does not operate normally due to a failure of a component or a defect of software (par. [0026] of the specification, as filed); and
instruct, to the network device in an inoperative state, a task [instructing the test device that reported a failure event to remove upgrade firmware 112] (step 614; col. 17 lines 47-55).
Zakharov fails to teach that the task includes instructing the network device to make a console connection to a management terminal.
Donlan is directed to providing operational mitigation, optimized data recovery, and efficient reinstatement of normal operation of the cluster when one or more devices of the cluster fails (abstract). In particular, Donlan teaches instructing, to a network device in an inoperative state, a task including console connection to a management terminal [issuing a command to a device of a user instructing the user to physically connect a data and/or power cable between an external data interface of the malfunctioned data transfer device and a healthy data transfer device (claimed management terminal)] (step 1404, par. [0154]-[0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Zakharov by instructing, to a network device in an inoperative state, a task including console connection to a management terminal in order to gain access to the malfunctioning data transfer device from the healthy device (Fig. 17 in Donlan).
As to claim 2, Zakharov teaches that the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: select a task to be instructed to the network device based on log information of the network device immediately before being into an inoperative state [instruction to remove upgrade firmware is based on the reported number of errors, print volume, error intervals, error frequency code, etc.] (col. 4 lines 50-67).
As to claim 3, Zakharov in view of Donlan teaches that the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: instruct the network device to perform work of console connection to a management terminal [switching device of the malfunctioned device utilizes external data interface to establish a connection with the switching device of the healthy device] (Fig. 1 in Donlan, par. [0051]-[0052]).
As to claim 4, Zakharov in view of Donlan teaches a network monitoring system (Fig. 1 in Donlan) comprising:
a management terminal that is connected to the network device in an inoperative state via a console [healthy network-attachable data transfer device that is connected to the malfunctioned device by a data cable between external data interfaces 118 and 120] (Fig. 1, par. [0154] in Donlan); and
the network monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: detect abnormality information indicating an abnormality of firmware from console output information output from the network device (col. 12 lines 39-67 in Zakharov).
As to claim 5, Zakharov teaches that the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: analyze a portion indicating an abnormality cause [error code] (col. 12 lines 39-67) of the console output information in a case where the abnormality information is included in the console output information; and output an analysis result of a portion indicating the abnormality cause (col. 8 lines 39-44).
As to claim 6, Zakharov teaches that the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: analyze the abnormality cause by collating with a character string to be collated held in advance in a case where a portion indicating the abnormality cause is a character string [error code] (col. 12 lines 39-67; Figs. 9-13), and output the abnormality cause (col. 8 lines 39-44).
As to claim 7, Zakharov teaches that the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: extract a measurement value of an abnormal portion in a case where a portion indicating the abnormality cause is a measurement value [reported number of errors, print volume, error intervals, error frequency code, etc.] (col. 4 lines 50-67), and output the extracted measurement value (col. 8 lines 39-44).
As to claim 8, Zakharov in view of Donlan teaches that the management terminal [healthy network-attachable data transfer device] (Fig. 1 in Donlan) comprising: a second memory storing instructions (par. [0052] in Donlan); and at least one second processor configured to execute the instructions (par. [0052] in Donlan) to perform operations as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claim 9, Zakharov teaches a network monitoring method causing a computer to execute:
detecting that a network device being monitored has been brought into an inoperative state [monitor network connected devices for failure events] (steps. 404, 406; col. 14 lines 10-20); and
instructing, to the network device in an inoperative state, a task [executing an instruction to remove upgrade firmware 112 from the test devices that reported a failure event] (step 614; col. 17 lines 47-55).
Zakharov fails to teach that the task includes console connection to a management terminal.
Donlan is directed to providing operational mitigation, optimized data recovery, and efficient reinstatement of normal operation of the cluster when one or more devices of the cluster fails (abstract). In particular, Donlan teaches instructing, to a network device in an inoperative state, a task including console connection to a management terminal [instructing the switching device to connect the data storage of the degraded data switching device to the external data interface (step 1406, par. [0155]-[0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Zakharov by instructing, to a network device in an inoperative state, a task including console connection to a management terminal in order to gain access to the malfunctioning data transfer device (Fig. 17 in Donlan).
As to claim 10, Zakharov in view of Donlan teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a program (col. 21 lines 18-39 in Zakharov) for causing a computer to execute operations as discussed per claim 9 above.
As to claim 11, Zakharov in view of Donlan teaches that the management terminal [healthy network-attachable data transfer device] (Fig. 1 in Donlan) comprising:
a second memory storing instructions (par. [0052] in Donlan); and
at least one second processor configured to execute the instructions (par. [0052] in Donlan) to perform the operation as discussed per claim 4 above.
As to claim 12, Zakharov in view of Donlan teaches that the management terminal comprising:
a second memory storing instructions (as discussed per claim 11); and
at least one second processor configured to execute the instructions (as discussed per claim 11) to perform the operation as discussed per claim 5 above.
As to claim 13, Zakharov in view of Donlan teaches that the management terminal comprising:
a second memory storing instructions (as discussed per claim 11); and
at least one second processor configured to execute the instructions (as discussed per claim 11) to perform the operation as discussed per either claim 5 or claim 6 above.
Related Prior Art
Xu et al. (US 2018/0041384 A1) is directed to diagnosis apparatus and a method for failure node detection (abstract). In particular, Xu teaches a diagnosis apparatus 100 that monitors for a failure by transcoding packets of a suspected failure node and identifies a type of failure (Fig. 6 par. [0067]-[0077]). Therefore, the subject matter of Xu is relevant to the subject matter claimed and teachings of Xu can be used in the rejection of pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457