DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are presented for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang [ US Patent Application No 2021/0243051 ].
As per claim 1, Wang discloses the invention as claimed including a network management system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the network management system [ i.e. network management node ] [ 108, Figure 1; and paragraphs 0028-0030 ] to:
obtain information associated with one or more ports of a plurality of network devices [ i.e. collect VLAN activity information from each of the APs ] [ paragraphs 0029, 0069-0073 ];
determine, based on determining a mismatch of one or more parameters in response to performing a cross join of tables including information associated with a port of a first network device of the plurality of network devices and information associated with a port of a second network device of the plurality of network devices that is connected to the port of the first network device [ i.e. traffic on VLAN across multiple AP is categorized ] [ Figures 5, and 7; Abstract; and paragraphs 0042-0049, and 0055-0057 ], that there is a port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device [ i.e. determine whether a VLAN misconfigured based on a multi-AP categorization of the VLAN ] [ Figure 6; and paragraphs 0051-0054 ]; and
perform, based on the determination that there is a port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device, an action to remedy the port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device [ i.e. alert is generated so recommendation action, or manual intervention can assist with resolving the problem ] [ paragraphs 0023, 0026, and 0048 ].
As per claim 3, Wang discloses determine the mismatch of one or more parameters based on a connection hierarchy of the first network device and the second network device [ i.e. backhaul connection ] [ paragraphs 0013-0017 ].
As per claim 4, Wang discloses wherein to determine the mismatch of the one or more parameters, the instructions cause the network management system to determine whether there is a mismatch to one or more virtual local area network (VLAN) identifiers of the port of the first network device and one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the second network device [ i.e. mismatch VLAN ID ] [ Figure 7; and paragraphs 0043, and 0052 ].
As per claim 10, Wang discloses wherein the first network device comprises an access point [ Figure 1; Abstract ], wherein the second network device comprises a switch [ Abstract ], and wherein to determine the port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device, the instruction cause the network management system to: obtain, from the access point, wireless local area network (WLAN) information identifying a wireless network that one or more client devices access through the access point [ i.e. wireless network ] [ Figure 4; and paragraphs 0024, and 0040 ]; determine, based on the WLAN information, one or more virtual local area networks (VLANs) associated with the wireless network [ i.e. VLAN ] [ Figure 7; and Abstract ]; and determine whether there is a misconfiguration to a port of the access point or a port of the switch configured for the one or more VLANs associated with the wireless network [ i.e. VLAN misconfigured ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0038, and 0042 ].
7. As per claims 11, 13, and 14, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1, 3, and 4.
8. As per claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang [ US Patent Application No 2021/0243051 ], in view of PalChaudhuri et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0319042 ].
As per claim 5, Wang does not specifically disclose wherein to determine whether there is a mismatch to one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the first network device and one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the second network device, instructions cause the network management system to: determine whether a number of the one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the first network device is greater than a number of the one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the second network device, wherein the first network device is a child network device and the second network device is a parent network device; and determine, based on determining that the number of the one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the first device is greater than the number of the one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the second network device, that there is a port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device. PauChaudhuri discloses wherein to determine whether there is a mismatch to one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the first network device and one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the second network device, instructions cause the network management system to: determine whether a number of the one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the first network device is greater than a number of the one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the second network device [ i.e. AP may still have few VLANs that are unverified ] [ paragraph 0057 ], wherein the first network device is a child network device and the second network device is a parent network device [ i.e. upstream switch ] [ Figure 1A-1C; and paragraphs 0023, 0028, and 0029 ]; and determine, based on determining that the number of the one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the first device is greater than the number of the one or more VLAN identifiers of the port of the second network device, that there is a port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device [ i.e. compare the first set of VLAN identifiers known to be recognized by the second device to a second set of VLAN identifiers that are configured for the first device ] [ paragraphs 0016, 0068, and 0089 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wang and PalChaudhuri because the teaching of PalChaudhuri would enable to provide services with high scalability and availability, low cost of deployment, simplified management, and enhanced security [ PalChaudhuri, paragraph 0018 ]
11. As per claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang [ US Patent Application No 2021/0243051 ], in view of Kothari et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0071110 ].
As per claim 6, Wang does not specifically disclose wherein to determine the mismatch of the one or more parameters, the instruction cause the network management system to determine whether there is a mismatch to a maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the port of the first network device and an MTU of the port of the second network device. Kothari discloses wherein to determine the mismatch of the one or more parameters, the instruction cause the network management system to determine whether there is a mismatch to a maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the port of the first network device and an MTU of the port of the second network device [ i.e, changing MTU ] [ paragraph 0048 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wang and Kothari because the teaching of Kothari would enable to restore connectivity to the virtual switch if the virtual switch becomes disconnected [ Kothari, paragraph 0024 ].
As per claim 7, Kothari discloses wherein to determine the mismatch of the one or more parameters, the instruction cause the network management system to determine whether there is a mismatch to a mode of the port of the first network device and a mode of the port of the second network device [ paragraphs 0040, and 0048 ].
As per claim 8, Kothari discloses wherein to determine the mismatch of the one or more parameters, the instruction cause the network management system to determine whether there is a mismatch to a duplex configuration of the port of the first network device and a duplex configuration of the port of a second network device [ i.e. the type of duplex, e.g. half or full ] [ paragraphs 0040, and 0048 ].
16. As per claims 16-18, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 6-8.
Claim(s) 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang [ US Patent Application No 2021/0243051 ], in view of Ernohazy et al. [ US Patent Application No 2022/0116235 ].
As per claim 9, Wang does not specifically disclose wherein to determine the mismatch of the one or more parameters, the instruction cause the network management system to determine whether there is a mismatch to a power-over-Ethernet (PoE) status of the port of the first network device and a PoE status of the port of the second network device. Ernohazy discloses wherein to determine the mismatch of one or more parameters, the one or more processors are configured to determine whether there is a mismatch to a power-over-Ethernet (PoE) status of the port of the first network device and a PoE status of the port of the second network device [ i.e. PoE ] [ paragraphs 0030, 0033, and 0049 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wang and Ernohazy because the teaching of Erhonazy would enable to adjust transmission power of the radios in a wireless system as to optimize operation of the system [ Ernohazy, paragraph 0020 ].
19. As per claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 9.
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11, and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murray [ US Patent No 11,171,810 ] discloses technique for detecting misconfiguration of an uplink or an external network device connected to the uplink
Nguyen et al. [ US Patent Application No 2007/0274239 ] discloses method and system for automatic detection of network port configuration mismatch
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights