Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/930,642

PORT MISCONFIGURATION DETECTION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 29, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, DUSTIN
Art Unit
2446
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Juniper Networks Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
630 granted / 805 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
845
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.1%
+10.1% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 805 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 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) 1-5, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PalChaudhuri et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0319042 ]. As per claim 1, PalChaudhuri discloses the invention as claimed including a network management system comprising: memory; and one or more processors in communication with the memory [ i.e. system for VLAN mismatch detection in networks ] [ Figure 5; and paragraphs 0076, 0086-0090 ] and configured to: obtain information associated with one or more ports of a plurality of network devices [ i.e. snoop packets received from an upstream switch or proactively transmit packets to a switch for the purpose of seeking information to determine whether a particular VLAN is allowed by the upstream switch port ] [ Figures 2A-2C; and paragraphs 0042-0056 ]; determine, based on 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, whether there is a port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device [ i.e. the network device then determines whether the particular VLAN identifier is included in the first set of VLAN identifiers indicated by at least one of the plurality of packets received by the first device from the second device, and if the particular VLAN identifier is not included in the first set of VLAN identifiers, VLAN mismatch has been detected between AP and switch ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0045, 0046, 0050 and 0052 ]; 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. VLAN mismatch correction ] [ Figure 3; and paragraphs 0045, and 0057-0063 ]. As per claim 2, PauChaudhuri discloses wherein to determine the port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device, the one or more processors are configured to: combine the information associated with the port of the first network device and the information associated with the port of the second network device; and determine a mismatch of one or more parameters of the combined information associated with the port of the first network device and the information associated with the port of the second network device [ i.e. compare the first set of VLAN identifiers to a second set of VLAN identifiers that are configured for the first device ] [ paragraphs 0016, 0068, and 0089 ]. As per claim 3, PauChaudhuri discloses wherein to determine the mismatch of one or more parameters of the combined information associated with the port of the first network device and the information associated with the port of the second network device, the one or more processors are configured to: 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. upstream switch ] [ Figure 1A-1C; and paragraphs 0023, 0028, and 0029 ]. As per claim 4, PauChaudhuri 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 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. set of VLAN identifiers mismatch detection ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0015, 0016 and 0065 ]. As per claim 5, 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, the one or more processors are configured 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 ]. As per claim 10, PauChaudhuri discloses wherein the first network device comprises an access point [ 140, 145, Figure 1B ], wherein the second network device comprises a switch [ 130, 135, Figure 1B ], and wherein to determine the port misconfiguration of the first network device or the second network device, the one or more processors are configured 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. WLAN ] [ Figures 1A-1C; and paragraphs 0034-0037 ]; determine, based on the WLAN information, one or more virtual local area networks (VLANs) associated with the wireless network [ i.e. set of VLAN identifiers ] [ 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 mismatch has been detected between AP and switch ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0045, 0046, 0050 and 0052 ]. 9. As per claims 11-15, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1-5. 10. 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) 6-8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PalChaudhuri et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0319042 ], in view of Kothari et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0071110 ]. As per claim 6, PalChaudhuri does not specifically disclose 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 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 one or more parameters, the one or more processors are configured 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 PalChaudhuri 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 one or more parameters, the one or more processors are configured 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 one or more parameters, the one or more processors are configured 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 ]. 15. 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 PalChaudhuri et al. [ US Patent Application No 2015/0319042 ], in view of Ernohazy et al. [ US Patent Application No 2022/0116235 ]. As per claim 9, PalChaudhuri does not specifically disclose 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. 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 PalChaudhuri 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 ]. 18. As per claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 9. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gopalarathnam et al. [ US Patent Application No 2016/0337187 ] discloses mechanisms to identify mismatches in layer 3 configuration in a network Cuomo, Jr. et al. [ US Patent Application No 2022/0200860 ] discloses method for detecting misconfigurations and detecting incorrect cabling of physical adapters in a VLAN cluster Wackerly [ US Patent Application No 2008/0101380 ] discloses detection of mismatched VLAN tags 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598220
RCS PROXY SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PSAP SESSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593081
Systems and Methods for Dynamically Generating Manifests that Enable Dynamic Insertion of Content During Adaptive Streaming of Video
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581172
NETWORK MONITORING TO DETERMINE PERFORMANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE PROVIDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572585
DIGITAL PICTURE FRAME CONTENT CLUSTERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12549793
Server-Side Adaptive Media Streaming
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 805 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month