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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 07/10/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1, 13, 19 and 20 have been amended, claims 2-6 and 14-18 are canceled. Claims 1, 2-13 and 19-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In remarks applicant argues in substance that:
(a) Applicant argues that cited reference, “Koz” does not teach a unique identifier of the second network device.
Examiner respectfully disagree because “Koz” explicitly states that LLDP transmissions include unique identifier (MAC addresses) i.e., [0017] “LLDP information comprises unique identifier (MAC address) of one or more devices connected to the ports of a switch.” LLDP frames are transmissions sent by the second device and received by the first device. Thus, Koz expressly teaches receiving a transmission containing a unique identifier.
(b) Applicant argues that “Koz” does not teach, “an identifier of the network interface used by the second network device to send the transmission.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because Koz discloses that the LLDP information includes the port from which the transmission originated. i.e. [0017], “one or more device identifier collected for each port of the switch.” The “port” is the network interface used the second device to send the transmission. Thus, Koz teaches receiving a transmission containing an identifier of the network interface used by the second device.
(c ) Applicant yet again argues that “Koz” does not teach “an identifier of the network”.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Koz repeatedly describes that each frame received at a device includes a network identifier. In [0014], Koz discloses, “total number of frames received with wrong network identifiers at each port (CntWrongLanA, CntWrongLanB).” The presence of “wrong network identifiers” necessarily implies that the received transmission contains a network identifier. Thus, Koz teaches receiving a transmission containing an identifier of the network.
(d) Applicant yet again argues that, because Koz assumes a known network context (PRP) and therefore does not disclose “an indication of which redundancy protocol is used by the second network device.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because Koz explicitly teaches the system operates in PRP and HSR, and that the received frames include identifiers that distinguish between the redundancy protocols. In [0010], Kaz discloses, “redundant communication networks support one or more of parallel redundancy protocol (PRP) and high availability seamless redundancy (HSR).”
Koz further teaches that the received frames include network identifiers (LAN A / LAN B), which are protocol specific identifiers under PRP e.g., [0014], “frames received with wrong network identifiers at each port (CntWrongLanA, CntWrongLanB).”
Under PRP, “LAN A” and “LAN B” are protocol identifiers. Under HSR, the ring direction and sequence number serve the same role. Thus, Koz teaches receiving a transmission containing an indication of which redundancy protocol is used by the second device.
(e) Applicant further argues that “Koz” does not disclose, reception data representing the network interface used to receive the transmission.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Koz explicitly teaches determining which port received the frame, [0014], “indicator of traffic received for each port (StValA, StValB).”
(f) Applicant further argues that “Koz” does not disclose, “determining a current network configuration based on transmission and reception data.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because, Koz discloses in [0021], “information received from each device is utilized to check if there are any switch misconfigurations or if there any wrong cablings.”
(g) Applicant further argues that “Koz” does not disclose, “validating the current configuration against an expected configuration.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because Koz explicitly compares actual values to expected reference values. Koz [0022], discloses, “the reference values are available (WrongA, WrongB) determined from ErrA, ErrB and StValA, StValB.” This is validating the determined configuration against an expected configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kozhaya et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0131741 A1), hereinafter “Koz”.
As to claim 1. Koz discloses, a method for detecting network misconfiguration in process control systems (Koz, [0025-0029], the method comprising, by a first network device in a process control system (Koz, [0031], the method can be performed with an industrial device such as with distributed control system, or with a control device (controller or TED), which are connected e.g., physically to other devices in the redundant networks. The industrial device may also be one of the nodes of the redundant networks):
receiving a transmission from a second network device via a network, wherein the transmission comprises transmission data representing one or more components using which the transmission was made by the second network device, wherein the transmission data comprises a unique identifier of the second network device (Koz, [0017], comprises unique identifiers (MAC address), an identifier of a network interface used by the second network device to send the transmission (Koz, teaches that the LLDP information includes the port from which the transmission originated. i.e. [0017], “one or more device identifier collected for each port of the switch.” The “port” is the network interface used the second device to send the transmission.), an identifier of the network (Koz, [0018], Thus, the device identifiers collected for each port of the switch can be used to generate at least one of a status information and a misconfiguration information.), and an indication of which redundancy protocol is used by the second network device (Koz explicitly teaches the system operates in PRP and HSR, and that the received frames include identifiers that distinguish between the redundancy protocols. In [0010], Kaz discloses, “redundant communication networks support one or more of parallel redundancy protocol (PRP) and high availability seamless redundancy (HSR)).”;
determining reception data representing one or more components using which the transmission was received by the first network device, wherein determining the reception data comprises identifying a network interface of the first network device using which the transmission was received (Koz, [0020], the information received from a node comprises the indicator of traffic received for each port (StValA, StValB), and the error rate for the traffic received each port (ErrA, ErrB). As mentioned, the indicators and the error rates are determined from total number of frames received at each port (CntReceivedA, CntReceivedB) and total number of frames received with wrong network identifiers at each port (CntWrongLanA, CntWrongLanB).;
determining a current network configuration based on the transmission data and the reception data (Koz, [0020], see above); and
validating the determined current network configuration against an expected network configuration to detect misconfiguration of the network (Koz, [0021-0022], Information received from each device (node/switch) is utilized to check if there are any switch misconfigurations or if there any wrong cablings. A switch misconfiguration is determined if the information received from at least one switch includes the misconfiguration information. Koz further discloses, [0079-0081], the network manager would receive from each regular switch a message (information) indicating that there is no misconfiguration (an ALL GOOD () message), or an indication which switches (ports) are wrongly connected according to the comparison with the network information (e.g. comparison with configuration file).).
As to claim 7. Koz discloses the invention including, further comprising receiving transmissions from all other network devices connected to, or using, the network, and validating the determined current network configuration in response to receiving the transmissions from all other network devices (Koz, [0033], agent running on each device. These agents are configured to periodically generate and transmit the information associated with traffic at the corresponding device. [0021], Information received from each device (node/switch) is utilized to check if there are any switch misconfigurations or if there any wrong cablings.) .
As to claim 8. Koz discloses the invention including, wherein the transmission comprises a multicast (Koz, [0063], network devices (DANs) are expected to multicast supervision frames on a periodical basis).
As to claim 12. Koz discloses, wherein the remedial action comprises sending a response to the second network device and/or to a human-machine interface (HMI) to inform about the misconfiguration (Koz, [0036-0038], the network manager can communicate with the agents on mitigating actions for example using SNMP.).
As to claim 13 is rejected for same rationale as discussed for claim 1 above.
As to claim 19 is rejected for same rationale as discussed for claim 7 above.
As to claim 20 is rejected for same rationale as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koz as applied above in view of Roycroft et al. (Pat. No.: US 11784881 B1), hereinafter “Roy”.
As to claim 9. Koz discloses the invention as applied above. Koz however is silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the expected network configuration comprises, or is derivable from, predefined configuration information made available to the first network device.
Roy discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the expected network configuration comprises, or is derivable from, predefined configuration information made available to the first network device (Roy, col.2, lines 39-55, the subject disclosure include receiving a desired device configuration for network devices of a family of network devices, the network devices of the family of network devices having a common class for operation in a network, receiving one or more policies defining a configuration for the family of network devices, modifying the desired device configuration according to the one or more policies, forming a new template for the family of network devices and storing the new template for the family of network devices in a template catalog).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Roy” into those of “Koz” to provide a vendor agnostic network device configuration audit platform. From a model view, a desired state for a configuration for a network device. The configuration may be used for tasks such as configuration validation for the network device. A network device is a router located in a network and periodically receiving software updates, patches and other modifications. A software engine can examine the configurations of given devices such as the router in a specified way. A model is injected into the engine to annotate how the analysis should be performed.
As to claim 10. The combined system of Koz and Roy discloses the invention as applied above including, wherein validating the current network configuration against the expected network configuration comprises one or more checks against predefined rules expressing acceptable configurations (Roy, col.2, lines 39-57, initiating a configuration audit of the family of network devices, retrieving a current configuration of a network device of the family of network devices, comparing the current configuration of the network device with the new template for the family of network devices, identifying discrepancies between the current configuration of the network device and the new template for the family of network devices, and resolving the discrepancies according to user input.).
As to claim 11. The combined system of Koz and Roy discloses the invention as applied above including, comprising, in response to detection of misconfiguration of the network, taking one or more remedial actions (Roy, col.2, lines 18-22, reporting the discrepancies, receiving instructions to resolve the discrepancies, and modifying one of the current configuration for the network device and the configuration template for the network device responsive to the instructions to resolve the discrepancies.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at 571 272-7304. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights