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 .
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
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 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0308374 (hereinafter Wang).
As per claim 1, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed comprising:
Memory (fig. 3); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to (fig. 3):
obtain information of a plurality of network devices that indicate a plurality of network events that occurred at the plurality of network devices ([68]-[70][98]), wherein the plurality of network events comprises at least a networking loop event that occurred at an access point of the plurality of network devices and one or more network events that occurred at an upstream device to the access point ([67]-[70][78][79][87][91], e.g., obtain network data of network devices that indicate network event occurred at the network devices, wherein the events comprise access point loop/reflection and event of increase traffic indicative of failure of switch devices within the wired LAN having the access point);
determine, based on correlating the plurality of network events, whether the one or more network events that occurred is a root cause of the networking loop event that occurred at the access point ([69][72][78][79][141], e.g., determine, based on correlation of the network events, root cause analysis of the network loop at the access point; any wired device can caused the loop); and
perform, based on determining that the one or more network events that occurred is a root cause of the networking loop event that occurred at the access point, an action to remedy the networking loop event (fig. 1; [80], e.g., perform, based on events at any wired connected device as the caused of the loop, a remediation action to remedy the network loop).
Although Wang teaches determine, based on correlating the plurality of network events, whether the one or more network events that occurred is the root cause of the networking loop event that occurred at the access point; and perform, based on determining that the one or more network events that occurred is a root cause of the networking loop event that occurred at the access point, an action to remedy the networking loop event, however, Wang is silent in regard to network events that occurred at the upstream device is a root cause. Wang does teach any wired connected device can be the cause of the network loop at access point ([78][70]; fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include network events that occurred at the upstream device is a root cause in Wang’s system because by doing so it would allow Wang’s system to perform root cause analysis and remediation on any devices causing the network loop including upstream devices ([76][78]).
As per claim 2, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wang further teach wherein the one or more network events that occurred at the upstream device comprises at least one of: a network event indicative of port flapping experienced by the upstream device; a network event indicative of a misconfigured or missing virtual local area network (VLAN); or a network event indicative of a topology change ([79], e.g., STP_Topology_Change).
As per claim 3, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wang further teach wherein the one or more network events that occurred at the upstream device comprises at least one of: a network event indicative of a status of a port of the upstream device; a network event indicative of a status of configuration of the upstream device; or a network event indicative of a status of connectivity of the upstream device ([7][45][50][70][87]).
As per claim 4, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wang further teach wherein the upstream device comprises at least one of: a leaf switch; a spine switch; or a gateway device (fig. 1, e.g., switch/router within wired LAN of fig. 1).
As per claim 5, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wang further teach wherein, to determine, based on correlating the plurality of network events, whether the one or more network events that occurred at the upstream device is the root cause of the networking loop event that occurred at the access point, the one or more processors are configured to: determine, based on a networking graph of a network including the plurality of network devices, that the upstream device is communicatively coupled to the access point ([45][50][122]); and determine, based on comparing a first period of time of the one or more network events that occurred at the upstream device and a second period of time of the networking loop event that occurred at the access point, whether the first period of time matches the second period of time ([109][111], e.g., determine, based on comparing a preceding time window of events (i.e., including events of switches/routers within a wired LAN) and a present/advance time window event (e.g., network loop/reflection at AP) and exclude events that fall outside the time window).
As per claim 6, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wang further teach wherein to perform the action to remedy the networking loop event, the one or more processors are configured to: send a notification specifying the one or more events that occurred at the upstream device is the root cause of the networking loop event that occurred at the access point ([122][78][70]).
As per claim 7, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed in claim 6 above. Wang further teach wherein the notification includes a recommendation to remedy the networking loop event ([108][80][70]).
As per claim 8, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Wang further teach wherein to perform the action to remedy the networking loop event, the one or more processors are configured to: automatically perform an action to remedy the one or more network events that occurred at the upstream device ([108][78]).
As per claim 9, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed in claim 8 above. Wang further teach wherein to automatically perform the action to remedy the one or more network events that occurred at the upstream device, the one or more processors are configured to one or more of: send instructions to configure the upstream device to remedy the one or more network events that occurred at the upstream device; restart the upstream device; or reset the upstream device ([92][108]).
As per claims 10 and 19, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above.
As per claim 11, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claim 12, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
As per claim 13, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
As per claim 15, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
As per claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
As per claim 17, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 above.
As per claim 18, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights