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 § 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.
1. Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 20110314138 A1) in view of Erickson et al. (US 20180115469 A1).
Claim 1 Kobayashi teaches a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
detecting a configuration change in a network; (Kobayashi, FIG. 17, Step 1703, ¶0116, receiving configuration change list) and
selecting, based on the configuration change, a portion of analyzers from a plurality of analyzers. (Kobayashi, FIG. 17, Step 1705-1708, ¶0117, selecting an analyzer of a plurality of analyzers, wherein an analyzer comprises a process for analyzing an item)
However, Kobayashi does not explicitly teach based on detecting the configuration change, obtaining a data packet configured for transmission across the network from a source address to a destination address;
identifying, using the portion of analyzers and a network model representing the network, a configuration issue associated with the configuration change based on the data packet;
generating a configuration status identifying the configuration issue and a resource of the network affected by the configuration issue; and
reporting the configuration status to a user.
From a related technology, Erickson teaches based on detecting the configuration change, obtaining a data packet configured for transmission across the network from a source address to a destination address; (Erickson, FIG. 13, step 1304, ¶0112, obtaining a sample packet by computing a sample packet, wherein the sample packet is configured for transmission from a source to a destination)
identifying, using the portion of analyzers and a network model representing the network, a configuration issue associated with the configuration change based on the data packet; (Erickson, FIG. 13, step 1312, ¶0118-¶0120, determining a scenario based upon the correlation of network changes and the analysis of the data packet)
generating a configuration status identifying the configuration issue and a resource of the network affected by the configuration issue; (Erickson, FIG. 13, step 1312, ¶0118-¶0120, determining a scenario based upon the correlation of network changes and the analysis of the data packet) and
reporting the configuration status to a user. (Erickson, FIG. 15, step 1508, ¶0184, displaying configuration and state data to the user, FIGs 2-5)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kobayashi with the teachings of Erickson to incorporate the analytical techniques to more effectively determined network status..
Claim 2 Kobayashi in view of Erickson teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one analyzer of the plurality of analyzers comprises a default analyzer that analyzes a set of default rules. (Erickson, ¶0188, wherein the network analyzer comprises the default analyzer and analyzes according to rules; Examiner notes that the claim do not recite that the set of default rules are analyzed as part of the claims)
Claim 3 Kobayashi in view of Erickson teaches Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the set of default rules comprises a firewall configuration rule. (Erickson, ¶0063, wherein the analysis may include rules regarding a firewall)
Claim 4 Kobayashi in view of Erickson teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one analyzer of the plurality of analyzers comprises a custom analyzer that analyzes a set of custom rules provided by the user. (Erickson, ¶0062, wherein there is an interface elements that allows a user to toggle between request and response traffic, wherein the interface elements comprises a custom analyzer, and the request being a custom rule provided by a user; Examiner notes that the claim do not recite that the set of custom rules are analyzed)
Claim 5 Kobayashi in view of Erickson teaches Claim 4, and further teaches wherein the set of custom rules comprises Internet Protocol (IP) range classification. (Erickson, ¶0062, wherein the custom rules provide IP range classification for custom analysis in the form of requesting classification of either request, response, or request and response; ¶0052, ¶0056, and ¶0059, wherein the user may also specify specific values for an IP destination or source range)
Claim 6 Kobayashi in view of Erickson teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the operations further comprise, after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since reporting the configuration status to the user, (Erickson, FIG. 15, ¶0181) obtaining a second data packet configured for transmission across the network from the source address to the destination address. (Erickson, FIG. 13, step 1310, ¶115, obtaining a second sample packet)
Claim 7 Kobayashi in view of Erickson teaches Claim 6, and further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based on analysis of the second data packet, a second configuration status of the network; (Erickson, FIG. 13, step 1312, ¶0118-¶0120, determining a scenario based upon the correlation of network changes and the analysis of the data packet) and
reporting the second configuration status to the user. (Erickson, FIG. 15, step 1508, ¶0184, displaying configuration and state data to the user, FIGs 2-5)
Claim 10 Kobayashi in view of Erickson teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the configuration status comprises at least one recommendation for adjusting a configuration of the network. (Erickson, ¶0085, wherein the configuration status recommendation for validating changes made to the network)
Claims 11-17 are taught by Kobayashi in view of Erickson as described for Claims 1-7.
Claim 20 is taught by Kobayashi in view of Erickson as described for Claim 10.
2. Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 20110314138 A1) in view of Erickson et al. (US 20180115469 A1) and in further view of Kamimura (US 20110137862 A1).
Claim 8 Kobayashi in view of Erickson teaches Claim 6, but does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise determining that second data packet satisfies a similarity threshold to the data packet.
From a related technology, Kamimura teaches determining that second data packet satisfies a similarity threshold to the data packet. (Kamimura, ¶0125, determining the packet is similar, i.e. satisfying a similarity threshold)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kobayashi in view Erickson to incorporate the teachings of Kamimura in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
Claim 9 Kobayashi in view of Erickson and Kamimura teaches Claim 8, and further teaches wherein the operations further comprise, based on determining that second data packet satisfies the similarity threshold to the data packet, determining to refrain from updating the configuration status. (Kamimura, ¶0125, wherein updating is refrained upon determining the packet is similar, i.e. non-valid)
Claims 18-19 are taught by Kobayashi in view of Erickson and Kamimura as described for Claims Claim 8-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
