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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application filed 07/21/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant request for clarification is acknowledge (remarks pg. 8). The rejection relies upon the combined teachings of Park, Xiaoben, and Boyd. The previous Office Action was unclear in referring to “Park-Boyd,” the rejection has been clarified accordingly. Furthermore, applicant asserts that Park, Xiaoben, Boyd fails to teach “wherein the host endpoint device self-identifies as one of the outlier nodes based on determining when the connectivity performance quality between the host endpoint device and a threshold number of test endpoint devices within the subnet is less than a threshold amount.” Applicant’s further asserts that Xiaoben “cannot make up this deficiency because Xiaoben is limited to establishing thresholds for resource scores, but does not establish thresholds or even refer to applicant’s claimed threshold number” (remarks pg. 8-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Xiaoben discloses measuring performance related parameters comparing the measured parameters to thresholds to classify an entity as resource rich, resource neutral, or resource poor. Xiaoben further discloses an entity self-determines its own resource score based on performance related measurement or information received from other wireless nodes, including received signal strength from one or more UTs or nodes that are associated with the measuring entity. Xiaoben discloses receiving resource scores from other nodes and comparing its resource score to the resource scores of other nodes to determine its resource condition relative to other reporting nodes ([0031]-[0033]). Xiaoben discloses evaluating a group/subset of nodes. More specifically, Xiaoben discloses that a complain report may be received by a plurality of network entities, identified as APk/RNk, where k=1, 2,…n. Xiaoben discloses that these entities form a synchronized Beacon Group in which the entities place their resource scores one by one in a list ([0040]-[0041]). Xiaoben discloses determining whether all of the entities have provided their resource scores and comparing the entity’s resource score against the other entities reporting resource scores. Xiaoben further discloses that the other Aps/RNs determining whether they are resource-rich compared with the other reporting APs/RNs ([0040]-[0043]). Moreover, Xiaoben discloses maintaining information concerning neighboring entities. More specifically, Xiaoben discloses “RN 1 may have a list of its neighbors, which may include RN 2, RN 3, RN 4, RN 5, RN 6, etc., or some subset of these RNs” ([0094]). Thus, Xiaoben discloses forming a Beacon Gorup from a plurality of nodes, placing their scores one by one in a list, determining whether the group members have reported, and comparing a node with other reporting nodes. Xiaoben further discloses determining a node’s own score from measurements involving one or more associated nodes and self-classifying the node as resource-poor when its performance score is less than a threshold.
Regarding applicant’s remarks that Xiaoben does not itself disclose “tabulating” the number of other entities has been considered but it is not persuasive (see remarks pg. 9). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., tabulation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant remarks that Boyd “is limited to testing a performance metric for each node pair” (remarks pg. 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Boyd complements Xiaoben teachings by testing the connectivity performance of a particular node with multiple other nodes. Boyd discloses repeatedly pairing nodes, allowing for testing of all possible pairs, such that each node is paired with all other nodes to which it may be connected. Boyd complies the performance measurements for the tested links and identifies links operating below performance standard. Boyd compares each measured performance metric against a minimum acceptable value and determines whether the connection has sufficient performance ([0016], [0018], [0022]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,848 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the current application perform the same steps or limitations recited by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,848 B2 as detailed below by the examiner.
Claim 1-20
Current Application
Claim 1-20
Patent Case No. US 12,199,848 B2
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method comprising:
providing, by a host endpoint device within a subnet, results data from a connectivity performance quality test to a central network administration device, wherein the connectivity performance quality test includes performing a plurality of network throughput tests between the host endpoint device and a test endpoint device using a test file having a payload size, the connectivity performance quality test identifying outlier nodes and determining a connectivity performance quality, whereby the central network administration device executes a computer-based instruction based on the results data from the connectivity performance quality test,
wherein the host endpoint device self-identifies as one of the outlier nodes based on determining when the connectivity performance quality between the host endpoint device and a threshold number of test endpoint devices within the subnet is less than a threshold amount, and
wherein the computer-based instruction comprises:
generating a network map including a visual representation of the subnet including visual representations of the host endpoint device, the test endpoint device, and a subnet connection between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device, a visual representation of the subnet connection between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device being a visual representation of the results data of the connectivity performance quality test; and
modifying one or more network processes
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
selecting, by a host endpoint device within a subnet, a test endpoint device, of a plurality of test endpoint devices within the subnet, with which to perform a connectivity performance quality test to identify outlier nodes;
determining, by the host endpoint device, a payload size for a test file to be used for performing a network throughput test as part of the connectivity performance quality test;
performing, by the host endpoint device, the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device, wherein performing the connectivity performance quality test comprises performing a plurality of network throughput tests using the test file having the payload size that was determined; and
providing, by the host endpoint device, results data from the connectivity performance quality test to a central network administration device, whereby the central network administration device executes a computer-based instruction based on the results data from the connectivity performance quality test,
wherein the host endpoint device self-identifies as one of the outlier nodes based on determining when the connectivity performance quality between the host endpoint device and a threshold number of the test endpoint devices within the subnet is less than a threshold amount, and
wherein the computer-based instruction comprises:
generating a network map including a visual representation of the subnet including visual representations of the host endpoint device, the test endpoint device, and a subnet connection between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device, the visual representation of the subnet connection between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device being a visual representation of the results of the connectivity performance quality test;
modifying one or more network processes;
modifying one or more network policies;
modifying one or more routing tables; and
modifying one or more connection paths between endpoint devices within the subnet.
Patent claim 1 requires selecting the test endpoint device, determining the payload size, and performing the network throughput tests using the test file having the determined payload size. Claim 1 more broadly recites performing the plurality network throughput tests using a test file having a payload size. Patent claim 1 further recites the same “modifying one or more network process” limitation of current claim 1 and additionally requires modifying network policies, routing tables, and connection paths. Accordingly, current claim 1 encompasses the less specifically limited variation of the invention already claimed in patent claim 1 and does not define a patentably distinct invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 2. Thus, claim 2 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 3. Thus, claim 3 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 4. Thus, claim 4 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 5. Thus, claim 5 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 6. Thus, claim 6 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 7. Thus, claim 7 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 8. Thus, claim 8 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 9. Thus, claim 9 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the same limitations as patent claim 10. Thus, claim 10 does not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claim 10.
Regarding claims 11-20, the claims recites the same limitation as patent claims 11-20 respectively, therefore the claims do not add subject matter that is patentably distinct from patent claims 11-20
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 6, 11-12, 14, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0092184 A1) in view of Xiaoben et al. (US 2008/0165727 A1) in further view of Boyd et al. (US 2016/0183110 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
providing, by a host endpoint device within a subnet, results data from a connectivity performance quality test to a central network administration device, whereby the central network administration device executes a computer-based instruction based on the results data from the connectivity performance quality test ([0130]-[0131]: the controller device 720 receives information regarding measured network quality, based on the second flow rule. The communication unit 920 of the controller device 720 may transmit information regarding network quality to the management device 710 through the communication unit 920. The management device 710 may display the information regarding network quality in response thereto) and
wherein the computer-based instruction comprises: generating a network map including a visual representation of the subnet including visual representations of the host endpoint device, the test endpoint device, and a subnet connection between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device, a visual representation of the subnet connection between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device being a visual representation of the results data of the connectivity performance quality test (fig. 23A-23F, [0138]: The 3D topology display module 1501 may display a UI for inputting information regarding a test condition and measure targets as illustrated in FIG. 23A to FIG. 23F. In addition, the 3D topology display module 1501 may display a UI indicating information regarding the result of quality test. [0197]: the first display area 2310 of the UI 2300, information regarding targets (source target and destination target), for which network quality is measured, is display. For example, the first display area 2310 indicates that the source target is vm6, and the destination target is vm9. In the second display area 2320 of the UI 2300, information regarding the test condition used to test network quality is displayed. For example, the second display area 2320 may indicate various parameter values used to test network quality, and a test protocol (for example, TWAMP). Moreover, the UI 2300 may visually display the structure of a DC related to the source target and the destination target).
However, Park does not disclose the connectivity performance quality test identifying outlier nodes and determining a connectivity performance quality; wherein the host endpoint device self-identifies as one of the outlier nodes based on determining when the connectivity performance quality between the host endpoint device and a threshold number of test endpoint devices within the subnet is less than a threshold amount; and modifying one or more network processes.
In an analogous art, Xiaoben discloses the connectivity performance quality test identifying outlier nodes and determining a connectivity performance quality ([0031]: a user terminal receiving signals having a received signal strength less than a first threshold may be classified as resource-poor, and therefore, may have difficulty accessing the wireless media and/or transmitting packets to one or more APs, for example. An entity having received signals with a received signal strength greater than a second threshold may, for example, be classified as resource-rich, for example); wherein the host endpoint device self-identifies as one of the outlier nodes based on determining when the connectivity performance quality between the host endpoint device and a threshold number of test endpoint devices within the subnet is less than a threshold amount ([0032]: An entity (such as an AP, BS, RN, etc.) may also determine a resource score for itself based on one or more measurement of performance-related parameters or information received from other wireless nodes.[0041]-[0042]: APk/RNk may form a synchronized Beacon Group, in which they put their own resource score one by one in a list. The AP/RN may initiate resource measurement, and if a resource-poor situation is determined within the serving area, they may trigger the Beacon process, in which nodes may perform self-evaluation and report their resource scores to other nodes via Beacon transmissions. [0094]: RN 2 may or may not be considered as a neighbor because the overlapping coverage area, in some cases may be considered is too small. RN 1 may have a list of its neighbors, which may include RN 2, RN 3, RN 4, RN 5, RN 6, etc., or some subset of these RNs); and modifying one or more network processes ([0152]: releasing the resource may include the measuring node performing one or more of the following: reducing transmission power; adjusting a smart antenna or a transmission beam; restricting itself from using one or more transmission channels or time slots; or reassigning itself to use a different channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park to comprise “the connectivity performance quality test identifying outlier nodes and determining a connectivity performance quality; wherein the host endpoint device self-identifies as one of the outlier nodes based on determining when the connectivity performance quality between the host endpoint device and a threshold number of test endpoint devices within the subnet is less than a threshold amount; and modifying one or more network processes” taught by Xiaoben.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled a wireless node to evaluate its own performance and self-determine when its performance is poor, thereby facilitating identification of poorly performing node (Xiaoben [0006],[0011]).
However, Park-Xiaoben does not disclose wherein the connectivity performance quality test includes performing a plurality of network throughput tests between the host endpoint device and a test endpoint device using a test file having a payload size.
In an analogous art, Boyd discloses wherein the connectivity performance quality test includes performing a plurality of network throughput tests between the host endpoint device and a test endpoint device using a test file having a payload size ([0021]: Measuring (320) the performance metric across the link connecting the paired nodes…a typical approach to performing a bandwidth measurement is to transfer a ‘large’ file, or the contents of a region of allocated memory, from one node to another node and measure the time required to complete the transfer or copy of the file. The bandwidth is then calculated by dividing the file size by the duration of the transfer to get the throughput in megabits, kilobits, or bits per second_.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben to comprise “wherein the connectivity performance quality test includes performing a plurality of network throughput tests between the host endpoint device and a test endpoint device using a test file having a payload size” taught by Boyd.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled evaluation of network connectivity by testing performance metrics between multiple pairs of nodes and compiling the resulting measurements into a performance report, thereby facilitating identification of network connections exhibit inadequate performance (Boyd, [0016]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd discloses the method of claim 1. Park discloses providing the results data from each of the plurality of individual connectivity performance quality tests to the central network administration device, whereby the central network administration device executes the computer-based instruction based on the results data from each of the plurality of individual connectivity performance quality tests (Park, [0130]-[0131]: the controller device 720 receives information regarding measured network quality, based on the second flow rule. The communication unit 920 of the controller device 720 may transmit information regarding network quality to the management device 710 through the communication unit 920. The management device 710 may display the information regarding network quality in response thereto).
However, Park-Xiaoben does not disclose executing a plurality of individual connectivity performance quality tests between the host endpoint device and a respective plurality of test endpoint devices within the subnet.
In an analogous art, Boyd discloses executing a plurality of individual connectivity performance quality tests between the host endpoint device and a respective plurality of test endpoint devices within the subnet (Boyd, fig. 1C, [0016]: Pairing (230) each node with another node in the network may include selecting nodes to be paired together for testing. Once the nodes are paired, connection performance tests may be conducted on the link connecting each pair of nodes. [0017]: Testing (240) a performance metric for each pair of nodes may include testing characteristics that may impact the performance of each connection between two paired nodes. The performance metric may be tested for all possible pairs of nodes within the system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben to comprise “executing a plurality of individual connectivity performance quality tests between the host endpoint device and a respective plurality of test endpoint devices within the subnet” taught by Boyd.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled testing a performance metric for the paired nodes, and generating a performance report for the network (Boyd, [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising determining round trip latency between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device as part of the connectivity performance quality test (Boyd, [0010]: A latency test will involve initiating a connection, and measuring the round trip time).
Regarding claim 6, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the computer-based instruction further comprises: visually presenting the network map on a display device (Park, [0138]: The 3D topology display module 1501 may display a UI for inputting information regarding a test condition and measure targets as illustrated in FIG. 23A to FIG. 23F. In addition, the 3D topology display module 1501 may display a UI indicating information regarding the result of quality test).
Regarding claims 11 and 19; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd discloses the computer program product of claim 11, wherein each connectivity performance quality test of the plurality of connectivity performance quality tests comprises determining the payload size for the test file to be used for performing a network throughput test with a particular test endpoint device as part of the connectivity performance quality test (Boyd, [0021]: Measuring (320) the performance metric across the link connecting the paired nodes…a typical approach to performing a bandwidth measurement is to transfer a ‘large’ file, or the contents of a region of allocated memory, from one node to another node and measure the time required to complete the transfer or copy of the file. The bandwidth is then calculated by dividing the file size by the duration of the transfer to get the throughput in megabits, kilobits, or bits per second). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Claims 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Xiaoben in view of Boyd, as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view Karacali-Akyamac et al. (hereinafter Karacali, US 2020/0021493 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd does not disclose further comprising determining jitter between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device as part of the connectivity performance quality test.
In an analogous art, Karacali discloses further comprising determining jitter between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device as part of the connectivity performance quality test ([0027]: In other examples, the initial measurements may comprise measurements of one or more of a number of network performance parameters such as packet delay, jitter and packet loss measurements collected using traffic patterns such as ring or many-to-many. In some examples, as described herein, the endpoint correlation table may be used to cluster the plurality of endpoints into endpoint groups).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben-Boyd to comprise “further comprising determining jitter between the host endpoint device and the test endpoint device as part of the connectivity performance quality test.” taught by Karacali.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled generating a network performance assessment, based on measuring performance metrics pertaining to traffic injected between endpoints across the endpoint groups in the plurality of endpoint group pair (Karacali, [0003]).
Regarding claim 15; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Xiaoben in view of Boyd, as applied to claims 1 and 12, in view of Sarapure et al. (US 2017/0373984 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the payload size comprises exchanging progressively larger test files with the test endpoint device until a time to transfer the test file is within a predetermined time duration range.
In an analogous art, Sarapure discloses wherein determining the payload size comprises exchanging progressively larger test files with the test endpoint device until a time to transfer the test file is within a predetermined time duration range ([0030], [0035]: Running the trial test with the multiple different data sizes includes transmitting each block of data over network(s) 220, and determining the length of time it takes for the data block to be received at the client 110. Incrementing of the data block size may continue, with the transmission of each incremented data block, until a threshold length of time is achieved for the time it takes for the data block to be received at client 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben-Boyd to comprise “wherein determining the payload size comprises exchanging progressively larger test files with the test endpoint device until a time to transfer the test file is within a predetermined time duration range” taught by Sarapure.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to run trial test with multiple different data sizes for a time duration; in order to select an optimum data block length, a number of speed test threads, a number of speed test iterations, and a speed test iteration duration based on results of the trial test (Sarapure, [0011]).
Regarding claim 13; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Xiaoben in view of Boyd, as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Liu et al. (US 2015/0289176 A1) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 2013/0121337 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd disclose the method of claim 1.
However, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd does not disclose further comprising: establishing a start time to perform the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device; probing the test endpoint device; receiving an indication as to whether the test endpoint device is currently available for testing; waiting for the start time; performing the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device when the indication indicates that the test endpoint device is currently available for testing and when the start time is reached.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses further comprising: establishing a start time to perform the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device, probing the test endpoint device ([0017]: The process may further include adding a start time to the test data indicating a start of a measurement instance using the test data); receiving an indication as to whether the test endpoint device is currently available for testing; waiting for the start time; performing the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device when the indication indicates that the test endpoint device is currently available for testing and when the start time is reached ([0040]: Availability may be measured by the time that a MEP is in available state. [0046]: the edge devices 202 or 204 may collect multiple test frames 208 received during measurement instances and may send the multiple test frames 208 in batches or groups to the mediator 302 periodically (e.g., at predetermined times, when network bandwidth becomes available to a predetermined threshold, upon receiving a threshold number of test frames, etc.). The mediator 302 may be configured to calculate frame delay, jitter, or any other suitable metrics from start times and receive times included in the test data reported from each edge device 202 and 204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben-Boyd to comprise “further comprising: establishing a start time to perform the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device; probing the test endpoint device; receiving an indication as to whether the test endpoint device is currently available for testing; waiting for the start time; performing the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device when the indication indicates that the test endpoint device is currently available for testing and when the start time is reached” taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled adding a start time to the test data indicating a start of a measurement instance using the test data (Liu, [0017]).
However, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd-Liu does not disclose receiving information identifying a time when the test endpoint device is available for testing when the indication indicates that the test endpoint device is currently not available for testing; and performing the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device at the time that was identified.
In an analogous art, Nguyen discloses receiving information identifying a time when the test endpoint device is available for testing when the indication indicates that the test endpoint device is currently not available for testing; and performing the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device at the time that was identified ([0043]: the busy device list module 120 would indicate that node 102B is busy transmitting data to node 102A and is, therefore, unavailable to receive transmissions from node 102C. [0055], [0091]: used herein a node is "available" or "has availability" to receive a transmission if it is affirmatively noted in the busy device list as being available (e.g., has scheduled/reserved time to receive the communication). A node is "available" or "has availability" to receive a transmission if it is affirmatively noted in the busy device list as being available (e.g., has scheduled/reserved time to receive the communication) or if it is implicitly available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben-Boyd-Liu to comprise “receiving information identifying a time when the test endpoint device is available for testing when the indication indicates that the test endpoint device is currently not available for testing; and performing the connectivity performance quality test with the test endpoint device at the time that was identified” taught by Nguyen.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to determining quality of links between nodes of the network, and routing communications based at least in part on the determined quality of the links (Nguyen, [0015]).
Regarding claim 17; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Xiaoben in view of Boyd in view of Liu in view of Nguyen, as applied to claims 7 and 17, in view of Machiraju et al. (US 8,713,138 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd-Liu-Nguyen discloses the method of claim 7.
However, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd-Liu-Nguyen does not disclose wherein the establishing the start time comprises randomizing the start time.
In an analogous art, Machiraju discloses wherein the establishing the start time comprises randomizing the start time (column 8, 58-63: The "staggerstat" command configures the start time for the probe stream and requires a random object to randomly create a start time as an argument. The "contdata" command configures the probe stream to continuously output data and requires an on or off value, such as a Boolean number as argument).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben-Boyd-Liu-Nguyen to comprise “wherein the establishing the start time comprises randomizing the start time” taught by Machiraju.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to receive network data from the probe streams and to analyze the network data, thereby utilizing the network to estimate path properties, such as capacity, bandwidth, round trip time (Machiraju, column 1, 56-61).
Regarding claim 18; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Xiaoben in view of Boyd, as applied to claim 1, in view of Reale et al. (US 2021/0105186 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd does not disclose selecting the test endpoint device from a peer client list.
In an analogous art, Reale discloses selecting the test endpoint device from a peer client list ([0013]: the client devices randomly select at least one other client device to which data is transmitted. Thereafter, each client device will measure a value of a connectivity performance metric of each communication link over which it transmits data to another client device. [0052]: Each client device can select all or a subset of the listed devices for data transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben-Boyd to comprise “selecting the test endpoint device from a peer client list” taught by Reale.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled each client device to measure a value of a connectivity performance metric of each communication link over which it transmits data to another client device in order to determine topology of a corporate network (Reale, [0007],[0013]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Xiaoben in view of Boyd, as applied to claim 1, in view of Smith et al. (US 2020/0304397 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Park-Xiaoben-Boyd does not disclose further comprising: performing a connectivity performance quality test on a test server outside of the subnet; and providing, by the host endpoint device, second results data from the connectivity performance quality test to the central network administration device.
In an analogous art, Smith further comprising: performing a connectivity performance quality test on a test server outside of the subnet; and providing, by the host endpoint device, second results data from the connectivity performance quality test to the central network administration device ([0042]: inspect data in in respect of each of a plurality of communication flows, each communication flow comprising a flow of data between a user-device in a local area network and a remote device outside the local area network whereby to obtain, at a monitoring device outside the local area network: [0043] a performance measure indicative of the performance of the communication flow between the user-device and the remote device, the performance measure being obtained using a predetermined performance measuring process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park-Xiaoben-Boyd to comprise “further comprising: performing a connectivity performance quality test on a test server outside of the subnet; and providing, by the host endpoint device, second results data from the connectivity performance quality test to the central network administration device” taught by Smith.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to obtain diagnostic test results in respect of local area networks using a monitoring device outside the local area networks in question that inspects data flows between devices in order to identify/diagnose problems with network performance in respect of the local area networks (Smith, [0050]).
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclosure.
Barton et al., US 2022/0021585 A1: Cluster Management of Edge Compute Nodes.
Efrati et al., US 2015/0024720 A1: Remote Testing Through Third Party Devices.
Xiao, US 2013/0136030 A1: Method for Measuring Throughput and Maintenance End Point.
Zheng et al., US 2022/0027431 A1: Real User Monitoring Statistics From End Users.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C TURRIATE GASTULO whose telephone number is (571)272-6707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4 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 B 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.
/J.C.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2454
/OSCAR A LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights