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 .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 06/25/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1, 8, 14 – 15, and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11 – 12, 14 – 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (US 2019/0230003; hereinafter Gao) in view of Karim W. SADIK (US 2023/0135050; hereinafter SADIK), and further in view of Dave et al (US 2025/0265655; hereinafter Dave).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a network device and from a user, a command for exclusive access to
management plane services (paragraphs [0083], [0086], [0089], [0105]; Gao discloses a user such as a network professional (which is equating for example as a maintenance user that may be granted the exclusive access to the management plane services as disclosed) can follow a few steps to troubleshoot a network problem including mapping the problem area, probing from a network map, and comparing the current network state with baseline data);
receiving, by the network device, a request for a check, a diagnostic, or a statistic from
the user and within the time limit (paragraphs 0139], [0154]; Gao discloses that a Delta Trigger can retrieve CRC errors of a network interface within a certain time interval such as 5 seconds.);
implementing, by the network device, the request to generate a check result, a diagnostic
result, or the statistic (paragraphs [0139], [0154]; Gao discloses that if the CRC errors increase, an error message may be created indicating that the cable connected to this network interface does not work properly); and
providing, by the network device, the check result, the diagnostic result, or the statistic to
the user (paragraphs [0030], [0045]; Gao discloses that the computer processor to implement a method comprising: presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display; presenting a representation of the network of devices on the display, wherein the representation include real-time information for each represented device; accepting from a user, via the GUI, one or more steps of the network management procedure);
Gao discloses all the limitations, but fails to specifically disclose the step of providing, by the network device and to other users currently logged in to the network device, a wall message indicating granting of the exclusive access to the management plane services.
SADIK, in an analogous art, discloses the step of providing, by the network device and to other users currently logged in to the network device, a wall message indicating granting of the exclusive access to the management plane services (paragraphs [0033], [0118], [0133]; SADIK discloses that the private message wall may have a private tag so that the private message wall is viewable only by users 114 with sufficient access levels. The users 114 may be able to view all private messages that are posted on the private message wall (e.g., by other users 114, or by the AI-based chatbot of profile 106).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Gao by providing, by the network device and to other users currently logged in to the network device, a wall message indicating granting of the exclusive access to the management plane services as evidenced by SADIK for the purpose of indicating users via a private wall message that access to content has been granted; thereby providing a safe and reliable system.
Gao and SADIK disclose all the limitations, but fail to specifically disclose the step of setting, by the network device, a time limit for the exclusive access to the management plane services.
Dave, in ana analogous art, discloses the step setting, by the network device, a time limit for the exclusive access to the management plane services (paragraph [0073]; Dave discloses that environment 330 can be a private limited access environment hosted by a financial institution within a metaverse).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Gao and SADIK by setting, by the network device, a time limit for the exclusive access to the management plane services as evidenced by Dave for the purpose of safely allowing access to management services in a timely manner.
Regarding claim 11, Gao discloses the network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the command for the exclusive access to the management plane services, are to: receive the command via a command line interface of the network device or via a remote procedure call session established by the network device (paragraphs [0048], [0089]).
Regarding claim 12, Gao discloses the network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further to: receive, from the user, a correction for the network device that is generated based on one or more of the check result, the diagnostic result, or the statistic (paragraphs [0110], [0119], [0121 – 0122]).
Regarding claim 14, Gao discloses the network device of claim 8, wherein the exclusive access to the management plane services enables the user to provide operational commands, remote procedure calls, and configuration updates to the network device without requiring the network device to enter a maintenance mode or stop ongoing applications (paragraphs [0109 – 0110], [0119], [0190], [0200]).
Claims 2 - 3, 9, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, SADIK, and Dave, and further in view of Shah et al (US 2022/0311821; hereinafter Shah).
Regarding claim 2, Gao discloses all the limitations in claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose the step of providing, to the user and prior to setting the time limit, a response granting the user the
exclusive access to the management plane services.
Shah, in an analogous art, discloses the step of providing, to the user and prior to setting the time limit, a response granting the user the exclusive access to the management plane services (paragraphs [0030], [0045]; Shah discloses that the customer systems i.e., resources deployed in the customer's tenancy communicates with the control plane via the access plane deployed in the customer's tenancy. Such an architecture provisions customers to have a fully managed service which includes allowing access for product experts to the customer's managed environment(s), and systems access to/from a pluggable architecture of management and value-added services within which all services come from the control plane of the MSP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Gao, SADIK, and Dave by providing, to the user and prior to setting the time limit, a response granting the user the exclusive access to the management plane services as evidenced by Shah for the purpose of enhancing security by allowing immediate approval or denial of data access requests; thereby ensuring that data remain safeguarded.
Regarding claim 3, Gao, SADIK, Dave, and Shah disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
preventing existing and new management plane sessions from executing commands during the time limit (paragraph [0104]; Shah discloses that the customer can determine what the data plane VCN 718 can access, and the customer may restrict access to public Internet 754 from the data plane VCN 718). Same motivation as in claim 2.
Claims 4 – 7, 9 - 10, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, SADIK, Dave and further in view of Heidenreich et al (US 2012/0179821; hereinafter Heidenreich).
Regarding claim 4, Gao discloses all the limitations in claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose the steps of determining that the time limit for the exclusive access to the management plane services
has expired; and releasing the exclusive access to the management plane services based on expiration of
the time limit.
Heidenreich, in an analogous art, discloses the steps of determining that the time limit for the exclusive access to the management plane services has expired (paragraphs [0009], [0017], [0021]; Heidenreich discloses that a condition entails a time aspect, such that an allocated exclusive lock will expire again automatically after a predetermined time interval has elapsed. Alternative embodiment variants of the invention provide other expiration conditions here which are e.g. event-dependent, access-dependent or access-type-dependent, or client-dependent ); and releasing the exclusive access to the management plane services based on expiration of the time limit (paragraph [0022]; Heidenreich discloses that after the predeterminable time interval has elapsed, the resource is automatically released again so that it also becomes available to other requesting clients. In this way it is possible to prevent locks that have once been allocated in the system from "getting lost" due to errors elsewhere).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Gao, SADIK, and Dave by determining that the time limit for the exclusive access to the management plane services has expired; and releasing the exclusive access to the management plane services based on expiration of the time limit as evidenced by Heidenreich for the purpose of in order to ensure data consistency during contending accesses to operating device/module.
Regarding claim 5, Gao, SADIK, Dave, and Heidenreich disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising:
notifying the user of expiration of the exclusive access to the management plane services (Heidenreich: paragraphs [0032 - 0033]; Heidenreich discloses that that the server sends a NOTIFICATION message to the client to which the exclusive lock has been allocated in order to inform the client and/or a user of the client that the allocated exclusive lock will expire after a time interval which can be predetermined). Same motivation as in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Gao, SADIK, Dave, and Heidenreich disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising:
providing, to the other users, another wall message indicating expiration of the exclusive
access to the management plane services (paragraphs [0073]; Heidenreich discloses that it should be pointed out in this connection that the REGAIN option or the allocation of a REGAIN does not require a NOTIFICATION or an ALERT to be sent. In other words, notifying the clients (by way of NOTIFICATION and ALERT) is only performed as an optional function). Same motivation as in claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Gao, SADIK, Dave, and Heidenreich disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the user, a request to extend the time limit of the exclusive access to
management plane services (paragraph [0066]; Heidenreich discloses that in other words, it therefore expires again automatically at the end of the predeterminable time period.); and
resetting the time limit for the exclusive access to the management plane services based
on the request to extend the time limit (paragraphs [0066], [0084]; Heidenreich discloses that Alternatively as already mentioned above—other expiration conditions can also be provided here which are applied in addition or alternatively to the time-based expiration (e.g. event-driven)). Same motivation as in claim 4.
Claims 8 – 10, 13, and 15 - 20 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 7 in network device and computer product form rather than method form. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 7 apply in claims 8 – 10, 13, and 15 - 20. Therefore, claims 8 – 10, 13, and 15 - 20 are rejecting for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
