DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 8/11/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-14 and 18 have been amended and claims 6 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-18 are pending.
The Amendment to the Title filed 8/11/26 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments have overcome the previously presented Objections to the Title and Claim Objections.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
The New Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-18 filed on 8/11/26 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Cheng et al.” (US PGPUB 2023/0087454) (Hereinafter Cheng).
With respect to claim 1, Cheng teaches an apparatus (network management and control system; Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 11-12, [0038]-[0039], [0115]), comprising:
an interface (network adapter; Fig. 12, [0127]), to receive, from a network (Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 11) comprising network adapters and network switches (network management and control system receives packet metrics from multiple computing devices. Computing devices include source and destination interfaces and intermediate/edge devices that process the packet; Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 11, [0100], [0115]-[0116]), telemetry data items pertaining to packets (network management and control system receives packet metrics from multiple computing devices. Computing devices include source and destination interfaces and intermediate/edge devices that process the packet; Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 11, [0100], [0115]-[0116]), and comprising an identifier of a flow associated with the packets (network management and control system receives packet metrics from multiple computing devices. The packet metrics for each packet are accompanied by a packet identifier associated with the packet, and a session identifier. Packets are matched based on a flow identifier; Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 11, [0013], [0032], [0066], [0083], [0115]-[0116]), the telemetry data items originating from (i) a source network adapter of the flow (source interface corresponds to a machine from which packets of interest are sent; Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 11, [0010], [0032], [0034], [0100], [0103], [0108], [0115]-[0116]), (ii) a destination network adapter of the flow (Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 11, [0035], [0100], [0108], [0115]-[0116]), and (iii) one or more of the network switches along a path of the flow (edge devices can be intermediate devices between two host computers such that a source host computer, an edge device, and a destination host computer would all be providing metric data to the network management and control system; Figs. 1, 3, 8 and 11, [0100], [0115]-[0116]); and
a processor (processing unit(s) 1210; Fig. 1, [0122]), to analyze the telemetry data items associated with the flow (network management and control system uses packet metrics to perform packet analysis such as packet tracing, packet capture, packet counting, etc.; [0011], [0114], [0118]).
With respect to claim 2, Cheng teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to trace a path of a given packet via the network (providing a complete packet trace for each individual packet; [0011], [0114], [0118]).
The limitations of claims 10-11 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1-2 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of “Dave et al.” (US PGPUB 2022/0166722) (Hereinafter Dave).
With respect to claim 3, Cheng teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Cheng does not teach wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to trace a path of the flow via the network.
However, Dave teaches wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to trace a path of the flow via the network (controller arranges flow records in a flow record database according to an entropy label in order to reconstruct a given flow’s path; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using metrics to trace flow paths to Cheng because Cheng discloses performing packet tracing ([0114]) and Dave suggests using metrics to trace flow paths ([0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Dave in the Cheng system in order to quickly identify flow failures.
With respect to claim 4, Cheng teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Cheng does not teach wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to quantify a performance of at least one network switch of the network.
However, Dave teaches wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to quantify a performance of at least one network switch of the network (controller analyzes network flow statistics and/or determines errors in the network flow or the end-to-end path for the packet. For example, if any of routers does not provide the flow record associated with the network flow’s given entropy label, controller determines that router to be down or to have an error; [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using metrics to quantify switch performance to Cheng because Cheng discloses collecting packet metrics from multiple devices ([0115]) and Dave suggests using metrics to quantify switch performance ([0033]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Dave in the Cheng system in order to quickly identify device failures.
The limitations of claims 12-13 are rejected in the analysis of claims 3-4 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of “Mimura et al.” (US PGPUB 2001/0021176) (Hereinafter Mimura).
With respect to claim 5, Cheng teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Cheng does not teach wherein, by analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to estimate a time duration spent by particular packets of the flow in a given network switch.
However, Mimura teaches wherein, by analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to estimate a time duration spent by particular packets of the flow in a given network switch (calculating how long packets stay in a packet switch; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using metrics to estimate a packet time duration to Cheng because Cheng discloses collecting packet metrics from multiple devices ([0115]) and Mimura suggests using metrics to estimate a packet time duration ([0040]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Mimura in the Cheng system in order to effectively collect statistics and transmission performance data.
The limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of “Abraham et al.” (US PGPUB 2011/0202650) (Hereinafter Abraham).
With respect to claim 7, Cheng teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Cheng does not teach wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to identify a traffic bottleneck in the network.
However, Abraham teaches wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to identify a traffic bottleneck in the network (a table which records traffic statistics of flows is maintained and a traffic management system identifies the network bottlenecks and their corresponding data paths; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using metrics to identify a traffic bottleneck to Cheng because Cheng discloses collecting packet metrics from multiple devices ([0115]) and Abraham suggests using metrics to identify a traffic bottleneck ([0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Abraham in the Cheng system in order to quickly identify network traffic issues.
The limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of “Goel et al.” (US PGPUB 2020/0106671) (Hereinafter Goel).
With respect to claim 8, Cheng teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Cheng does not teach wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to identify a network configuration error in the network.
However, Goel teaches wherein, in analyzing the telemetry data items, the processor is to identify a network configuration error in the network (using network data packets, configuration issues in the components of the network are identified; [0030], [0032], [0035], [0038], [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using metrics to identify network configuration errors to Cheng because Cheng discloses collecting packet metrics from multiple devices ([0115]) and Goel suggests using metrics to identify network configuration errors ([0063]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Goel in the Cheng system in order to quickly identify network configuration errors.
The limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 8 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of “Cheng et al.” (US PGPUB 2023/0101764) (Hereinafter Cheng2).
With respect to claim 9, Cheng teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Cheng does not teach wherein the telemetry data items pertain to a portion of the flow, wherein the portion is determined based on application-level information.
However, Cheng2 teaches wherein the telemetry data items pertain to a portion of the flow, wherein the portion is determined based on application-level information (deep packet inspection is performed on packets to identify a traffic type (i.e., the application on the wire) that is being sent in the packet flow, an AppID is generated for the traffic type, and the AppID is stored; [0061]-[0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate collecting metrics based on application-level information to Cheng because Cheng discloses collecting metrics for a same packet flow ([0032]) and Cheng2 suggests collecting metrics based on application-level information ([0062]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Cheng2 in the Cheng system in order to efficiently analyze complicated issues.
The limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 9 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Punj et al. US 2021/0194779. Discloses tagging network traffic flows.
Finn, II et al. US 2020/0296007. Discloses enriching flow data for network analytics.
Kulshreshtha et al. US 2021/0067849. Discloses flowlet resolution for application performance monitoring.
Deshmukh et al. US 2022/0174012. Discloses collecting, processing, and distributing telemetry data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights