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 .
Priority
This application filed on November 4, 2024 discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior Application No. 14/862,680, filed July 12, 2022, currently U.S. Patent No. 12,231,508, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. The benefit of the filing date, July 12, 2022, of the prior application is acknowledged, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Information Disclosure Statement
A total of five information disclosure statements (IDSs) were filed on November 7, 2024 with a total of 185 prior art references and six foreign reports. Only three of those IDSs can be considered.
Regulation 37 C.F.R. 1.56(a) describes a “duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability,” but also states that there is “no duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim.” 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(3).
Rule 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(3) states as follows:
(a) Any information disclosure statement filed under § 1.98 shall include …
(3)
(i) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent, publication, or other information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from applicant’s specification or incorporated therein.
All of the IDSs submitted by Applicant are in violation of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3), because they do not include concise explanations of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 C.F.R. 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed.
Furthermore, the IDSs in total contain a total of 185 prior art references, 126 of which were considered. The Office considers this number of references to be outside the norm, burdensome, and unreasonable. Because of the large number of prior art references, it appears that many of the references are likely irrelevant. The MPEP provides the following guidance:
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v.Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). MPEP § 2004(13), emphasis added.
Applicant has not followed Office guidance by avoiding long lists and has not highlighted which references are of most significance, or even those of marginal significance. Examiner would request that Applicant’s attorney comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(3)(i) by providing a concise explanation of the relevance of the large number of IDS references, and/or highlighting the documents considered by Applicant to be of particular significance. Of the 126 prior art references considered, it should be noted that not even one of the many references discloses any of the terms critical to the invention: “discovery command,” “network address,” or “proxy server.” It appears that Applicant’s attorney has provided a list of references that are totally unrelated to the instant application and has not provided a statement explaining their relevance, thereby violating 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(3)(i).
Another issue with one of the IDSs, which list five Examination Reports from foreign patent offices, is that three of those reports were not submitted as NPL, and two of them appear to be differently dated Australian reports listed on another IDS for the same Australian patent. In absence of any of the needed reports, those IDSs for which NPLs were not provided cannot be considered.
Accordingly, Examiner has provided only the appropriate amount of cursory review of the references, given the limited timeframe provided for such review under standard examination procedures. The large number of references detracts the clarity of record by obfuscating the relevant prior art.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) -706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim recited in U.S. Patent No. 12,231,508 B1, filed as Application No. 17/862,680 on July 12, 2022. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as seen in the following table. The same general process is recited in both applications, with the instant claims as recited much more broadly, as discussed in the chart below.
Instant Application No.
18/936,126
US Patent 12,231,508
Application No.
17/862,680
Comments
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
obtaining, from a non-transitory memory, a discovery command;
transmitting, via a proxy server, the discovery command to each of a plurality of devices;
receiving, via the proxy server, a plurality of discovery results respectively associated with the plurality of devices,
wherein each of the plurality of discovery results indicates an outcome of a corresponding device attempting to execute the discovery command; and
storing a plurality of entries in the non-transitory memory, wherein each of the plurality of entries indicates a respective discovery result of the plurality of discovery results.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 2,
wherein an entry of the plurality of entries includes specifications of: the discovery command, a network address of the corresponding device that attempted to execute the discovery command, and success or failure of executing the discovery command on the corresponding device.
Claim 13:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
reading, by a discovery validation application before beginning discovery procedures and from persistent storage, a list of discovery commands respectively associated with lists of network addresses, and the lists of network addresses, wherein the discovery commands and the network addresses are stored in a first database table within the persistent storage;
for each discovery command in the list of discovery commands, transmitting, by the discovery validation application and by way of a proxy server and associated with the discovery command, the discovery command to each network address in the respectively associated list of network addresses, wherein the transmission occurs in accordance with a network protocol associated with the discovery command;
receiving, by the discovery validation application and by way of the one or more proxy servers, discovery results respectively corresponding to each of the discovery commands that were transmitted,
wherein the discovery results either indicate success or failure of the discovery commands; and
writing, by the discovery validation application and to the persistent storage, the discovery results,
wherein the discovery results are stored within a second database table within the persistent storage, and wherein the second database table is arranged according to a schema that includes, for each of the discovery results, specifications: of a particular discovery command that was executed, and of either success or failure of execution of the particular discovery command.
It is apparent that the instant claims are much more broadly recited than those of the patent claims, but the same overall process is claimed in both applications, as shown by the underlined portions of each limitation. Claims 1 and 5 taken together recite most of the subject matter of the patent claim, although more broadly. Some of the terminology is differently recited, for example, in the “transmitting” step, to “a plurality of device” in the instant claim versus to “each network address” in the patent claim, both of which steps are completed via a ”proxy server.”
However, despite the difference in breadth and terminology, the overall process is the same.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 2,
wherein the first database table specifies a network address of the proxy server through which the discovery command is to be transmitted.
Claim 16:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13,
wherein each entry of the discovery results in the second database table includes a specification of a particular discovery command that was executed, the network address to which the particular discovery command was transmitted, or a proxy server through which the particular discovery command was transmitted.
A similar process despite the differences in breadth.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 2,
wherein the first database table specifies authentication credentials to use with the discovery command to access each of the plurality of devices.
Claim 15:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13,
wherein entries of the first database table respectively include indications of classes of operating systems on which particular discovery commands are to be executed, types of the particular discovery commands specifying network protocols used to deliver the particular discovery commands, proxy servers through which the particular discovery commands are to be transmitted, or authentication credentials to use with the particular discovery commands.
A similar process despite the differences in breadth.
Claim 9:
The method of claim 7,
wherein the indication of failure specifies that the discovery command failed due to:
a network address to which the discovery command was transmitted being unreachable,
the discovery command not being supported by a device associated with the network address,
authentication failure of credentials used by the discovery command to access the device, or authorization failure of the credentials when the device attempted to execute the discovery command.
Claim 19:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13,
wherein an indication of failure in the discovery results specifies whether a particular discovery command failed due to:
a particular network address to which the particular discovery command was transmitted being unreachable, the particular discovery command not being supported by a computing device associated with the particular network address,
authentication failure of credentials used by the particular discovery command to access the computing device, or authorization failure of the credentials when the computing device attempted to execute the particular discovery command.
A similar process despite the differences in breadth.
Claim 14:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, from a non-transitory memory, a discovery command;
transmitting, via a proxy server, the discovery command to each of a plurality of devices;
receiving, via the proxy server, a plurality of discovery results respectively associated with the plurality of devices, wherein each of the plurality of discovery results indicates an outcome of a corresponding device attempting to execute the discovery command; and
storing a plurality of entries in the non-transitory memory, wherein each of the plurality of entries indicates a respective discovery result of the plurality of discovery results.
Claim 16:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein an entry of the plurality of entries includes specifications of:
the discovery command, a network address of the corresponding device that attempted to execute the discovery command, and success or failure of executing the discovery command on the corresponding device.
Claim 20:
An article of manufacture including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause a discovery validation application to, before beginning discovery procedures, perform operations comprising:
reading, from persistent storage, a list of discovery commands respectively associated with lists of network addresses and the lists of network addresses;
for each discovery command in the list of discovery commands, transmitting, by way of a proxy server associated with the discovery command, the discovery command to each network address in the respectively associated list of network addresses wherein the transmission occurs in accordance with a network protocol associated with the discovery command;
receiving, by way of the one or more proxy servers, discovery results respectively corresponding to each of the discovery commands that were transmitted, wherein the discovery results either indicate success or failure of the discovery commands; and
writing, to the persistent storage, the discovery results, wherein the discovery results are stored within a second database table within the persistent storage, and
wherein the second database table is arranged according to a schema that includes, for each of the discovery results, specifications:
of a particular discovery command that was executed, and of either
success or failure of execution of the particular discovery command.
A similar process despite the differences in breadth.
Claim 20:
A computing system comprising: one or more processors; memory; and program instructions, stored in the memory, that upon execution by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, from a non-transitory memory, a discovery command;
transmitting, via a proxy server, the discovery command to each of a plurality of devices;
receiving, via the proxy server, a plurality of discovery results respectively associated with the plurality of devices,
wherein each of the plurality of discovery results indicates an outcome of a corresponding device attempting to execute the discovery command; and
storing a plurality of entries in the non-transitory memory, wherein each of the plurality of entries indicates a respective discovery result of the plurality of discovery results.
Claim 1:
A system comprising:
persistent storage containing a list of discovery commands, the discovery commands respectively associated with lists of network addresses, wherein the discovery commands and the network addresses are stored in a first database table within the persistent storage; one or more processors; and a discovery validation application that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to, before discovery procedures:
read, from the persistent storage, the list of discovery commands and the lists of network addresses;
for each discovery command in the list of discovery commands, transmit, by way of a proxy server deployed external to the system and associated with the discovery command, the discovery command to each network address in the respectively associated list of network addresses, wherein the transmission occurs in accordance with a network protocol associated with the discovery command;
receive, by way of the one or more proxy servers, discovery results respectively corresponding to each of the discovery commands that were transmitted,
wherein the discovery results either indicate success or failure of the discovery commands; and
write, to the persistent storage, the discovery results, wherein the discovery results are stored within a second database table within the persistent storage, and
wherein the second database table is arranged according to a schema that includes, for each of the discovery results, specifications: of a particular discovery command that was executed, and of either success or failure of execution of the particular discovery command.
See comments for instant Claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Owen et al. (US 2019/0342744 A1,hereinafter referred to as Owen).
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 20,
Owen teaches:
“obtaining, from a non-transitory memory, a discovery command” (paragraph [0143]). [Computational instances transmit discovery commands to proxy servers and in response, proxy servers then provide information regarding discovered configuration items to a configuration management database (CMDB) for storage in CMDB ([0106]). Discovery information is included/displayed in a single GUI, where additional information is displayed in the GUI once the user enters a command ([0143]).] (NOTE: The receipt of discovery commands by the proxy servers and by users at a GUI are equivalent to “obtaining, from a non-transitory memory, a discovery command.”)
“transmitting, via a proxy server, the discovery command to each of a plurality of devices” (paragraph [0106]). [Computational instances transmit discovery commands to proxy servers and proxy servers transmit probes to various devices, applications, and services in managed network, which transmit responses to proxy servers ([0106]).] (NOTE: The various devices are equivalent to “each of a plurality of devices.”)
“receiving, via the proxy server, a plurality of discovery results respectively associated with the plurality of devices, wherein each of the plurality of discovery results indicates an outcome of a corresponding device attempting to execute the discovery command” (paragraphs [0106], [0113]). [Computational instances transmit discovery commands to proxy servers ([0106]). Various types of various types of probe messages are transmitted by proxy servers to one or more devices in managed network, and the responses to these probes are received and processed by proxy servers ([0113]).] (NOTE: The responses to the probes sent by “the proxy server” that are received and processed by proxy servers are equivalent to “discovery results indicates an outcome of a corresponding device.”)
“storing a plurality of entries in the non-transitory memory, wherein each of the plurality of entries indicates a respective discovery result of the plurality of discovery results” (paragraph [0114]). [In the scanning phase, proxy servers probe each IP address in the specified range of IP addresses for open Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and/or User Datagram Protocol (UDP) ports to determine the general type of device; once the presence of a device at a particular IP address and its open ports have been discovered, these configuration items are saved in CMDB ([0114]).] (NOTE: The specified range of addresses after scanning is stored in the database is equivalent to “storing a plurality of entries in the non-transitory memory, wherein each of the plurality of entries indicates a respective discovery result.”)
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations” as recited in Claim 14 (paragraph [0256]).
“A computing system comprising: one or more processors; memory; and program instructions, stored in the memory, that upon execution by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations” as recited in Claim 20 (paragraph [0256]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 14.
Owen teaches:
“wherein the discovery command is obtained from a first database table within the non-transitory memory, and wherein the plurality of entries are stored in a second database table within the non-transitory memory” (paragraphs [0076], [0106]). [Data storage includes any form of database, such as a structured query language (SQL) database, in which various types of data structures may store the information in such a database in tables, arrays, lists, trees, and tuples ([0076]). Computational instances transmit discovery commands to proxy servers and in response, proxy servers then provide information regarding discovered configuration items to a configuration management database (CMDB) for storage in CMDB ([0106]).]
Regarding Claim 3,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 2.
Owen teaches:
“wherein the first database table specifies a network address of the proxy server through which the discovery command is to be transmitted” (paragraph [0110]). [To facilitate discovery, proxy servers are configured with information regarding one or more subnets in a managed network that are reachable by way of proxy servers, such as the IP address range 192.168.0/24 as a subnet; then, a computational instance stores this information in CMDB ([0110]).]
Regarding Claim 4,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 2.
Owen teaches:
“wherein the first database table specifies authentication credentials to use with the discovery command to access each of the plurality of devices” (paragraphs [0106], [0101], [0147]). [Computational instances transmit discovery commands to proxy servers and in response, proxy servers then provide information regarding discovered configuration items to a configuration management database (CMDB) for storage in CMDB ([0106]). Configuration items may be represented in a configuration management database (CMDB) of computational instance ([0101]). Tasks for setting up a proxy server involve (i) creating a proxy server user account that allows authentication with computational instance on a remote network management platform, (ii) downloading a proxy server installation package, and (iii) installing the proxy server in the managed network ([0147]).] (NOTE: The CMDB, which is equivalent to the “first database,” stores information about discovery commands and configuration items, presumably including “authentication credentials to use with the discovery command.”)
Regarding Claims 5 and 16,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2 and 15.
Owen teaches:
“wherein an entry of the plurality of entries includes specifications of: the discovery command, a network address of the corresponding device that attempted to execute the discovery command, and success or failure of executing the discovery command on the corresponding device” (paragraphs [0101], [0120], [0106], [0107], [0110]). [The term "configuration items" is shorthand for any physical or virtual device, or any application or service remotely discoverable or managed by a computational instance represented in a configuration management database (CMDB) of computational instances ([0101]). The CMDB includes entries regarding dependencies and relationships between configuration items ([0120]). The CMDB and task lists are stored within computational instance, which transmits discovery commands to proxy servers ([0106]). The proxy server communicates securely with a computational instance, transmits discovery probes on a local network to gather the information regarding discovered configuration items, and transmits discovery probe results back to the CMDB for storage ([0107]). To facilitate discovery, proxy servers are configured with information regarding one or more subnets in the managed network that are reachable by way of proxy servers; for instance, proxy servers can be given the IP address range 192.168.0/24 as a subnet; then, computational instances store this information in the CMDB for discovery of devices at each of these addresses ([0110]).] (NOTE: The entries in the CMDB are equivalent to “the plurality of entries,” the discovery commands stored within computational instance in the CMDB to the “discovery command,” the IP address range to “a network address of the corresponding device,” and the discovery probe results back to the CMDB for storage to “success or failure of executing the discovery command on the corresponding device.”)
Regarding Claim 6,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Owen teaches:
“wherein transmitting the discovery command to each of the plurality of devices is based on a plurality of network addresses, wherein each of the plurality of network addresses identifies a device of the plurality of devices” (paragraph [0110]). [To facilitate discovery, proxy servers are configured with information regarding one or more subnets in the managed network that are reachable by way of proxy servers; for instance, proxy servers can be given the IP address range 192.168.0/24 as a subnet; then, a computational instance stores this information in the CMDB and place tasks for discovery of devices at each of these addresses ([0110]).]
Regarding Claims 7 and 17,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 14.
Owen teaches:
“wherein each of the plurality of discovery results includes an indication of success or an indication of failure with regard to execution of the discovery command” (paragraphs [0106], [0107]). [Computational instances transmit discovery commands to proxy servers and in response, proxy servers transmit probes to various devices ([0106]). The proxy server communicates securely with a computational instance, transmits discovery probes on a local network to gather the information regarding discovered configuration items, and transmits discovery probe results back to the CMDB for storage ([0107]).] (NOTE: The discovery probe results inherently indicate “an indication of success or an indication of failure with regard to execution of the discovery command,” since the probe is based on the discovery command employed by the proxy server.)
Regarding Claims 8 and 18,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 7 and 17.
Owen teaches:
“wherein the indication of success includes output from execution of the discovery command” (paragraph [0114]). [In the scanning phase, proxy servers probe each IP address in the specified range of IP addresses for open Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and/or User Datagram Protocol (UDP) ports to determine the general type of device; once the presence of a device at a particular IP address and its open ports have been discovered, these configuration items are saved in the CMDB ([0114]).] (NOTE: The presence of a device at a particular IP address and its open ports have been discovered and saved to the CMDB are equivalent to “the indication of success includes output from execution of the discovery command.”)
Regarding Claim 10,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Owen teaches:
“wherein each of the plurality of devices and the proxy server are disposed within a network, and the discovery command is initially transmitted from outside of the network” (paragraphs [0050], [0056], [0078], [0079]; fig. 3, elements 300, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, 320, 340, 350). [The Application Platform as a Service (aPaaS) is introduced, to intelligently automate workflows throughout the enterprise paragraphs ([0050]). Since the aPaaS system is remotely hosted, it also utilizes security procedures when it interacts with systems in the enterprise or third-party networks and services hosted outside of the enterprise ([0056]). The remote network management architecture includes three main components, managed network 300, remote network management platform 320, and third-party networks 340, all connected by way of Internet 350 ([0078]). Managed network 300 is an enterprise network used by a business for computing and communications tasks, as well as storage of data, and include various client devices 302, server devices 304, routers 306, virtual machines 308, firewall 310, and/or proxy servers 312 ([0079]).] (NOTE: The use of aPaaS and the architecture shown in figure 3 indicate that “each of the plurality of devices and the proxy server are disposed within a network, and the discovery command is initially transmitted from outside of the network.”)
Regarding Claim 11,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Owen teaches:
“wherein transmitting the discovery command to each of the plurality of devices occurs in accordance with a network protocol specified for the discovery command” (paragraph [0114]). [In the scanning phase, proxy servers probe each IP address in the specified range of IP addresses for open Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and/or User Datagram Protocol (UDP) ports to determine the general type of device; the presence of such open ports at an IP address may indicate that a particular application is operating on the device that is assigned the IP address ([0114]).]
Regarding Claim 12,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Owen teaches:
“wherein transmitting the discovery command to each of the plurality of devices occurs independently of any discovery procedures performed on the plurality of devices” (paragraph [0087]; fig. 3, elements 300, 320, 322, 324, 326). [In some cases, a single customer uses multiple computational instances for example, managed network 300 may be an enterprise customer of remote network management platform 320, and may use computational instances 322, 324, and 326; the reason for providing multiple instances to one customer is that the customer may wish to independently develop, test, and deploy its applications and services, and computational instance 322 may be dedicated to application development related to managed network 300, computational instance 324 may be dedicated to testing these applications, and computational instance 326 may be dedicated to the live operation of tested applications and services ([0087]).]
Regarding Claim 13,
Owen teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Owen teaches:
“wherein the discovery command is from a list of discovery commands that has an ordering, and wherein each of the discovery commands is transmitted in accordance with the ordering” (paragraph [0142]). [A variety of GUIs that the discovery system provides to facilitate various operations relating to discovery operation, and two or more GUIs may be arranged to provide a workflow for preparing for, scheduling, and/or reviewing results of discovery; multiple GUIs may have a predefined sequential order, and thus the discovery system provides the GUIs in the predefined sequential order ([0142]).]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 19, which depend from Claims 7 and 17, recite the following subject matter not found in the prior art:
wherein the indication of failure specifies that the discovery command failed due to: a network address to which the discovery command was transmitted being unreachable, the discovery command not being supported by a device associated with the network address, authentication failure of credentials used by the discovery command to access the device, or authorization failure of the credentials when the device attempted to execute the discovery command.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art references listed on Form PTO-892 and not used in the prior art rejections are also relevant to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights