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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With regard to claims 9 and 20, the instant claims present that the network is a wireline or wireless network. The term “or” is taken to mean that one or both options may be selected. Wireless and wired would be the only possible options for a network, and thus the instant claim fails to further limit the parent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
With regard to claim 12, the instant claim presents a topology manager configured to build the network topology, where the only additional detail presented is “a topology manager.” Lacking detail of the structure of such a topology manager and how it differs from the system that is determining a network topology in claim 11, the instant claim fails to further limit claim 11, as the system as a whole or the instructions could be to topology manager.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,001,667 (Khanna) in view of US 2022/0200868 (Sobhani).
With regard to claim 1, Khanna discloses a method for managing a computer network topology, comprising:
receiving a desired network topology for multiple layers of network resources within a computer network (Khanna: Column 9, lines 28-30);
receiving real-time state data from the network resources within the computer network (Khanna: Claim 1, Figure 5, and Column 9, lines 1-25 and Figure 5. The gathered topology is based on the current (real-time) data of the network.);
determining a network topology of the network resources from the real-time state data (Khanna: Figure 5 and Column 9, lines 1-2. The topology is determined.); and
outputting a result of the comparing indicative of whether the determined network topology matches the desired network topology (Khanna: Figure 5. Lacking detail of what constitutes “outputting,” passing the determination to perform other functions would constitute such outputting.).
Khanna fails to disclose, but Sobhani teaches that the determining is for each of the multiple layers; comparing, for each of the multiple layers of the network resources, the determined network topology with respect to the desired network topology; and that the outputting is for each of the multiple layers of the network resources (Sobhani: Paragraph [0054]. In Sobhani, networks can be verified, where such verification can be for different NVDs (Network Verification Domain), where such different NVDs may be defined for specific network layers.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the analysis of Khanna for different network layers, such as in Sobhani, as Khanna is concerned with performing root cause analysis (Khanna: Column 11, lines 14-15), with additional information being collected makes it easier to isolate the link or node associated with the failure (Khanna: Column 11, lines 9-12), with the defining and verification of different NVDs, as in Sobhani, providing such additional information that would be useful to better isolate such failures.
With regard to claim 2, Khanna in view of Sobhani teaches generating a notification for performing troubleshooting when the determined network topology is different than the desired network topology (Khanna: Figure 5. Any differences in the topology are reconciled, where such would attempt to generate an accurate topology based on the comparison, which would “troubleshooting” in as much detail as provided by the instant claim, where the “notification,” lacking any detail aside from the function of “for performing troubleshooting” would be the output to the reconciliation functionality.).
With regard to claim 3, Khanna fails to teach expressly, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the multiple layers of the network resources comprise two or more of: a physical layer, a logical layer, and a service layer (More specifically, Sobhani utilizes the OSI model (Sobhani: Paragraph [0054]), where Official Notice is taken that the OSI model includes layers that would constitute a physical layer, a logical layer, and a service layer, in as much detail as provided by the instant claim, where when this knowledge is combined with Sobhani, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that at least two of these layers would be able to be specified for different NVDs.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the multiple layers of the network resources comprise two or more of: a physical layer, a logical layer, and a service layer to allow for the analysis of such layers to better isolate the actual root cause of any network issues (Khanna: Column 11, lines 9-15).
With regard to claim 4, Khanna in view of Sobhani teaches wherein the determined network topology comprises one or both of discovered topology and operational topology (Khanna: Column 9, lines 1-2 and Figure 5).
With regard to claim 5, Khanna fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the real-time state data for determining the discovered topology is acquired using streaming protocols supported by one or more of the network resources (Khanna teaches the use of messages to determine the topology (Khanna: Column 9, lines 1-25), where Official Notice is taken that messages associated with streaming protocols were well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize streaming protocols supported by one or more of the network resources to determine the topology to allow known types of real network traffic to provide such information, thus better utilizing more sources of information to determine the actual topology.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising normalizing the real-time state data for use in determining the discovered topology.
With regard to claim 7, Khanna teaches wherein the real-time state data for determining the operational topology is acquired by running commands on one or more of the network resources and receiving the real-time state data as output (Khanna: Column 5, lines 30-38. Ping ( a command) can be used to determine connectivity.).
With regard to claim 8, Khanna teaches wherein the real-time state data for a given network resource is one of: installed, ready to be installed, provisioned, ready to be provisioned, carrying traffic, idle, overloaded, and underloaded (Khanna: Column 9, lines 1-25. The real time state data would show the connectivity of the devices, such as devices that actually communicate with other nodes, and thus would include at least provisioned/installed. The instant claim lists alternatives, where only one alternative is required to teach the claim, as a whole, with the presence of a node (which would thus be installed and/or provisioned) being enough to teach the instant claim limitation, as a whole. It is also noted that Khanna includes the use of load on the nodes (Khanna: Column 6, lines 36-38) and performs root cause analysis (Khanna: Claim 1), where an overloaded state would be a known possible root cause for network issues.).
With regard to claim 9, the instant claim fails to further limit claim 1, and is rejected for the same.
With regard to claims 10-20, the instant claims are similar to one or more of claims 1-9, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
