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 Objections
Claims 14-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 “The method of claim 1” should read “The method of claim 13”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1, 4-5, 9-13, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigel (US 20170068526 A1) in view of Cohoe (US 6108309 A).
Regarding claim 1, Seigel teaches a network device comprising:
a volatile memory; and processing circuitry in communication with storage media, the processing circuity configured to: (Fig. 6 and [0055]-[0056])
obtain a software package comprising instructions for simulating a network instance; (Fig. 1-2 and [0023]: deploy a software package 112 that includes multiple components 113 that are to be deployed across the computing system 100. [0004]: The software package may include multiple components that are installed in various locations in the computing system. Multiple agents that perform mock activities emulating the activities of the multiple components may be deployed in the computing system.)
store the software package in the volatile memory; ([0041]: In FIG. 1, the coordinator 114 may determine particular locations where the components 113 are to be installed and install the agents 116, 118, 120 in the particular locations in the computing system 100.)
simulate, based on the instructions specified by the software package, the network instance to obtain data indicative of a performance of the network instance; and (Fig. 4 and [0013]: agents (e.g., software agents) to emulate components of a software package and identify potential problems prior to deploying the software components. The agents may engage in mock activities to emulate the components of the software. Coordinator software may gather data associated with the mock activities, correlate the data, display the data, and highlight potential problems. [0047]: data associated with the mock activities (e.g., performance-related data, configuration-related data, etc.) may be gathered.)
Seigel does not explicitly disclose send, via a communication channel established with a network management system (NMS) based on the software package, the data indicative of the performance of the network instance.
However, Cohoe teaches send, via a communication channel established with a network management system (NMS) based on the software package, the data indicative of the performance of the network instance. (Claim 12: network management system monitors performance of network elements, said autonomous message generator means further including means for generating network element performance data for input to said network management system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Seigel. One would have been motivated to do so because it is well-known in the art that a network management system ("NMS") is used to monitor a telecommunications network, provide status on the state of the network, and provide control over the network to resolve problems such as outages and traffic congestion. Control is provided in the form of commands issued to the network and responses received from the network. As taught by Cohoe, Background.
Regarding claim 4, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein to simulate the network instance to obtain the data indicative of the performance of the network instance, the processing circuitry is configured to simulate an operation of one or more client devices accessing a network via the network device. ([0020]: By installing software agents to perform activities emulating components of a software package enables potential problems to be identified and resolved prior to deploying the actual components. [0047]: communications issues (e.g., communication bottlenecks suggest the use of higher throughput communication technology or the addition of additional communication links, etc.).)
Regarding claim 5, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein to simulate the network instance to obtain the data indicative of the performance of the network instance, the processing circuitry is configured to perform a network test upon the simulated network instance to obtain the data indicative of the performance of the network instance. ([0021]: After testing the planned deployment using mock agents, and the performance load is acceptable, the enterprise network may be quickly switched from agents engaged in mock activities to components engaged in actual activities. [0043]: At 312, a system that has been modified (e.g., by changes to (1) the configuration, (2) the software, (3) the hardware, and the like) may be tested.)
Regarding claim 9, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein the software package includes one or more of: a network performance monitoring function or a network test to be performed by the simulated network instance; configuration data for the communication channel; a data format for the data indicative of the performance of the network instance; a schedule to perform the network performance monitoring function or the network test; a Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) to be used during performance the network performance monitoring function or the network test; or one or more resource requirements to be applied during performance the network performance monitoring function or the network test. ([0047]: data associated with the mock activities (e.g., performance-related data, configuration-related data, etc.) may be gathered. [0043]: At 312, a system that has been modified (e.g., by changes to (1) the configuration, (2) the software, (3) the hardware, and the like) may be tested.
Regarding claim 10, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein the data format specifies one or more of: a name or an identifier of the network performance monitoring function or the network test to be performed by the simulated network instance; one or more categories for the data indicative of the performance of the network instance; or one or more of a value of latency, jitter, packet loss specified by the data indicative of the performance of the network instance. ([0047]: data associated with the mock activities (e.g., performance-related data, configuration-related data, etc.) may be gathered. [0028]: The coordinator may correlate the activity data according to one or more specified criteria to identify different types of potential problems, such as a lag associated with receiving a response after sending a command to each of the network elements, whether the network connections to access the cloud servers are sufficient, etc.)
Regarding claim 11, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to simulate the network instance to obtain the data indicative of the performance of the network instance based at least in part on a triggering command received from a user. ([0030]: the system administrator may use the coordinator 114 to send the first command 126, instructing one or more of the agents 116, 118, 120 to perform the mock activities 128. The coordinator 114 may gather additional activity data 130, analyze the activity data 130 to identify potential problems, and suggest potential problems.)
Regarding claim 12, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein the data indicative of the performance of the network instance comprises one or more of latency, jitter, packet loss, CPU usage, memory usage, or a version identifier. ([0017]: the coordinator software may analyze the data associated with the mock activities and identify potential problems, such as servers with inadequate resources (e.g., insufficient processing power, insufficient memory, insufficient bandwidth, etc.), incorrect permissions, incorrect credentials, an inefficient network topology, performance bottlenecks, etc.)
Same rationales apply to claim 13 (method) and claim 20 (CRM) because they are substantially similar to claim 1 (network device).
Same rationales apply to claim 16 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 4 (network device).
Same rationales apply to claim 17 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 5 (network device).
Claim(s) 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigel (US 20170068526 A1) in view of Cohoe (US 6108309 A), and in view of Black (US 20210376912 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute software configured to perform one or more network functions of the network device, the software stored in a non-volatile memory of the network device, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the software package and simulate, based on the instructions specified by the software package, the network instance to obtain data indicative of the performance of the network instance without updating the software stored in the non-volatile memory. (Fig. 4 and [0045]-[0048]. [0020]: By installing software agents to perform activities emulating components of a software package enables potential problems to be identified and resolved prior to deploying the actual components.)
Seigel and Cohoe do not explicitly disclose the software is firmware.
However, Black teaches the software is firmware. ([0035]: one or more updates, such as software, firmware, or the like, may first be provisioned at the digital twin element for modeling, simulation and testing.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Seigel and Cohoe. One would have been motivated to do so because it is well-known in the art that updates to IoT devices includes software, firmware, or the like. As taught by Black, [0035].
Same rationales apply to claim 14 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 2 (network device).
Claim(s) 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigel (US 20170068526 A1) in view of Cohoe (US 6108309 A), and in view of Gupta (US 20240007350 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform network activities; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the software package and simulate, based on the instructions specified by the software package, the network instance to obtain data indicative of the performance of the network instance without interrupting the network activities. (Fig. 4 and [0045]-[0048]. [0020]: By installing software agents to perform activities emulating components of a software package enables potential problems to be identified and resolved prior to deploying the actual components. [0047]: communications issues (e.g., communication bottlenecks suggest the use of higher throughput communication technology or the addition of additional communication links, etc.).)
Seigel and Cohoe do not explicitly disclose the network activities include to forward network traffic.
However, Gupta teaches the network activities include to forward network traffic. (Abstract: a network management system may obtain information identifying a number of instances of an application associated with network traffic forwarded by a network device. The instances of the application are executed by client devices serviced by each network device in forwarding the network traffic.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Seigel and Cohoe. One would have been motivated to do so because it is well-known in the art that client devices execute one or more instances of one or more applications. These client-side applications generate and forward network traffic to network devices of a network for forwarding across the network. As taught by Gupta, [0006].
Same rationales apply to claim 15 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 3 (network device).
Claim(s) 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigel (US 20170068526 A1) in view of Cohoe (US 6108309 A), and in view of Schladetzky (US 20210377759 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel teaches wherein to simulate the network instance to obtain the data indicative of the performance of the network instance. (Fig. 4 and [0045]-[0048]. [0020]: By installing software agents to perform activities emulating components of a software package enables potential problems to be identified and resolved prior to deploying the actual components. [0047]: communications issues (e.g., communication bottlenecks suggest the use of higher throughput communication technology or the addition of additional communication links, etc.).)
Seigel and Cohoe do not explicitly disclose the processing circuitry is configured to perform at least one of: simulating a speed test by exchanging network traffic between the network instance and a server and measuring at least one of an upload speed or a download speed of the network traffic; or simulating a ping test by exchanging a ping message between the network instance and the server and measuring one or more of an average Round Trip Time (RTT), a maximum RTT, a minimum RTT, a ping count, a ping interval, a ping request size, a ping domain, a packet loss percentage, a number of packets received, or a number of packets transmitted.
However, Schladetzky teaches the processing circuitry is configured to perform at least one of: simulating a speed test by exchanging network traffic between the network instance and a server and measuring at least one of an upload speed or a download speed of the network traffic; or simulating a ping test by exchanging a ping message between the network instance and the server and measuring one or more of an average Round Trip Time (RTT), a maximum RTT, a minimum RTT, a ping count, a ping interval, a ping request size, a ping domain, a packet loss percentage, a number of packets received, or a number of packets transmitted. ([0037]: The emulation server may determine a number of operating values relevant to the performance of a mobile device such as upload speeds, download speeds, signal strength, call quality, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Seigel and Cohoe. One would have been motivated to do so because it is desirable to determine a number of operating values relevant to the performance of a mobile device such as upload speeds, download speeds, signal strength, call quality, etc. As taught by Schladetzky, [0037].
Same rationales apply to claim 18 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 6 (network device).
Claim(s) 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigel (US 20170068526 A1) in view of Cohoe (US 6108309 A), and in view of Li (CN103023727A).
Regarding claim 7, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel and Cohoe do not explicitly disclose wherein to simulate the network instance to obtain the data indicative of the performance of the network instance, the processing circuitry is configured to cause the network instance to initiate an Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) session with an AAA server.
However, Li teaches wherein to simulate the network instance to obtain the data indicative of the performance of the network instance, the processing circuitry is configured to cause the network instance to initiate an Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) session with an AAA server. (Abstract: the Portal performance testing system comprises a Portal server, and is characterized by further comprising access equipment, an AAA (authentication, authorization and accounting) server and a testing device, the testing device is connected with the access equipment, and the access equipment is respectively connected with the AAA server and the Portal server.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Seigel and Cohoe. One would have been motivated to do so because on the basis of existing technology, the Portal performance test of access device and Portal server faced problems. It is desirable for an improved Portal Performance Test System and method. As taught by Li, Page 3.
Same rationales apply to claim 19 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 7 (network device).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigel (US 20170068526 A1) in view of Cohoe (US 6108309 A), and in view of Aderton (US 20150261522 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Seigel and Cohoe teach the network device of claim 1.
Seigel and Cohoe do not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the software package from the NMS.
However, Aderton teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the software package from the NMS. ([0063]: A NMS may interact with one or more other applications to provide data packets to one or more computer systems coupled to the network. As used herein, a “data packet” refers to a computer file in any format. Examples of data packets may include, but are not limited to: executable files, text files, graphics files, software patches and other data and application files. For example, a NMS may interact with one or more other applications to provide software updates and/or software patches to one or more computer systems coupled to a network.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Seigel and Cohoe. One would have been motivated to do so because a NMS may interact with one or more other applications to provide data packets to one or more computer systems coupled to the network. As used herein, a “data packet” refers to a computer file in any format. Examples of data packets may include, but are not limited to: executable files, text files, graphics files, software patches and other data and application files. As taught by Aderton, [0063].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZI YE whose telephone number is (571)270-1039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights