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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0230186 to Lee et al.
As concerns claim 1, a method for monitoring status of a connection, comprising:
sending, based on a received user request (0067-user request), a capture task (0067-request interested in monitoring) of a data packet (0068-data packet capture) associated with the user request to multiple nodes (0068-data packet capture at network nodes);
receiving the captured data packet from the multiple nodes (0068-0069; analyzing; 0070-stored packet);
determining information of a source end (0069-sources) of the data packet, information of a target end (0069-destination) of the data packet, and operation information (0069-network congestion; 0064-congestion analysis) of a connection between the source end and the target end; and
monitoring the status of the connection (0064-congestion analysis is a “status” of the connection; 0069) based on at least one of the data packet, the information of the source end, the information of the target end, and the operation information.
As concerns claim 14, an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 3, 301); and a memory (Fig. 3, 303) coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to perform following operations:
sending, based on a received user request (0067-user request), a capture task (0067-request interested in monitoring) of a data packet (0068-data packet capture) associated with the user request to multiple nodes (0068-data packet capture at network nodes);
receiving the captured data packet from the multiple nodes (0068-0069; analyzing; 0070-stored packet);
determining information of a source end (0069-sources) of the data packet, information of a target end (0069-destination) of the data packet, and operation information (0069-network congestion; 0064-congestion analysis) of a connection between the source end and the target end; and
monitoring the status (0064-congestion analysis is a “status” of the connection; 0069) of the connection based on at least one of the data packet, the information of the source end, the information of the target end, and the operation information.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 14.
As concerns claim 11, the method according to claim 1, wherein monitoring the status of the connection comprises: determining an IO delay value (0006-packet delay; 0025) of the data packet based on a sending duration (0006-packet delay, times stamps, downstream and upstream) of sending the data packet from the source end to the target end and a response duration (0006-packet delay, times stamps, downstream and upstream) of returning the data packet from the target end to the source end.
As concerns claim 12, the method according to claim 11, wherein monitoring the status of the connection further comprises: determining an input throughput (0025; 0029-amount of network traffic flow) based on a data amount of the data packet, latest response time of the source end, and time of first data reception of the source end; and determining an output throughput (0025; 0029-amount of network traffic flow) based on a data amount of the data packet, latest response time of the target end, and time of first data reception of the target end.
As concerns claim 13, the method according to claim 1, wherein the data packet is captured by the multiple nodes from local delivery points and local output points in an internet protocol (IP) layer (0028-IP addresses).
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.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0230186 to Lee et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0136967 to Ito et al.
Lee ‘186 do not disclose:
As concerns claims 6 and 19, the invention according to claims 1 and 14, wherein monitoring the status of the connection comprises: determining whether the data packet is a reset data packet; and in response to that the data packet is the reset data packet, reporting a reset error and reset time.
Ito et al. ‘967 teach:
As concerns claims 6 and 19, the invention according to claims 1 and 14, wherein monitoring the status of the connection comprises: determining whether the data packet is a reset data packet (0073-reset packets); and in response to that the data packet is the reset data packet, reporting a reset error and reset time (0073-connection error; 0074-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Lee ‘186 with determining a reset, as taught by Ito et al. ‘967, in order to determine connection errors and connection management.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0327779 disclose congestion prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-7063. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Christopher L Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/JOHN B WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights