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
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 of Claim 30 states “wherein the wherein the…”. Examiner requests that the applicant erase the additional “wherein the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 24-25, 27-28, 31-32, 34-35, 38-39, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shurtleff (US 20200295994 A1).
As for Claims 24 and 31, Shurtleff discloses
A system, comprising:
one or more computing devices (i.e. FIG. 6 illustrates a computing system architecture 600 including components in electrical communication with each other using a connection 605.)(¶0060; computing system architecture 600 - Fig.6);
wherein the one or more computing devices include instructions (i.e. Shurtleff teaches instructions that, when executed, causes processors to dynamically measure values of selected performance metrics associated with devices on the network.)(¶0019 and 0060) that upon execution on or across the one or more computing devices:
obtain, via one or more programmatic interfaces (i.e. the programmatic interface is a graphical user interface (as applicant acted as their own lexicographer in paragraph [0044] by explicitly defining programmatic interfaces to include “graphical user interfaces (GUIs), web-based consoles… and/or command-line tools,”) through which a user provides the system with rules and threshold information used by the system to determine network health.)(¶0019), a definition of a particular health state of resources of a network(i.e. Shurtleff states a user can define rules that contain threshold values (health state) or ranges defining a tolerance limit or acceptable range for a user selected performance metric. Some embodiments of the present technology provide a user interface through which one or more actionable alert rules with regards to a set of target performance metrics of relevance (i.e., connection score, security score, upload bandwidth, download bandwidth, etc.) may be defined and inputted into the IoT management system by a network operator or user. In some embodiments the actionable alert may be surfaced automatically and proactively by the IoT management system when a pre-defined threshold for a selected out of tolerance condition is exceeded. For example, with regards to upload bandwidth utilization criteria, an actionable alerts rule may provide for an automatic triggering of actionable alerts in response to pre-defined percentage of devices exceeding a threshold upload rate in a 24 hour period. With reference to the example embodiment of FIG. 3, an actionable alert rule is set by a network operator for an actionable alert to automatically appear in response to 70% (or more) of on-boarded units associated with any of the safety device types in the safety device category (including fire alarms) exceeded (up or down) its average signal level by 70%.)(¶0052 and 0044);
collect metrics of a set of resources of a network (i.e. In some embodiments of the present technology, an IoT management system can measure operational performance of one or more Internet of Things (“IoT”) devices in a network, and can present a representation of the one or more selected operational performance metrics associated with one or more IoT devices in the network in a graphical user interface)(¶0018 & 0026);
determine, from the metrics, a percentage of the set of resources which are in the particular health state(i.e. Furthermore, an IoT management system, as described by some embodiments of the present technology, may assess and report on an out of tolerance condition of one or more device type (i.e., all IV units or all fire alarms) or device category (all medical devices or all safety related devices) based on a relative count or percentage of IoT device units, of a particular type or category, that are exhibiting behavior outside of network operator prescribed limits)(¶0033);
and present, via a graphical user interface, a visual indication of the percentage(i.e. the system assesses and reports the percentage change on the GUI. )(¶0033 and 0026).
As for Claim 38 the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in
scope to Claim 24, with Shurtleff further teaching the processing device containing a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and processor (Shurtleff, ¶0060)
As for Claims 25, 32, and 39, Shurtleff discloses
obtain, via the one or more programmatic interfaces, a criterion for grouping a subset of resources of the network (i.e. The actionable alerts may be directed to out of tolerance network conditions pertaining to one or more operator-defined grouping of on-boarded IoT devices, a user-selected IoT device category, a specific device type within a device category or individual device units. Common actions maybe to limit the allocated bandwidth or quarantine large sets of devices associated with the out of tolerance network condition. The action(s) may be applicable to multiple devices of a certain type, all the units belonging to a device type and/or device category, operator-defined grouping of devices and/or individual device units) (¶0041),
wherein the particular health state is defined with respect to at least a first group of resources which is grouped in accordance with the criterion (i.e. The iot management system assesses and reports out of tolerance conditions (health state) of a device category)(¶0033),
and wherein the metrics are collected from at least the first group (i.e. an assessment of the out of tolerance device behavior may be based on an extent of observed deviation, in the selected performance metric)(¶0033).
As for Claims 27, 34 and 41, Shurtleff discloses,
wherein the set of resources includes a pair of endpoints connected via a physical link (i.e. The iot management system measures performance of IOT devices in a network which means one resource or device would be connected to another device via physical link.)(¶0018),
and wherein the metrics include a metric of the physical link (i.e. Some embodiments of the present technology provide a user interface through which one or more actionable alert rules with regards to a set of target performance metrics of relevance (i.e., connection score, security score, upload bandwidth, download bandwidth, etc.) may be defined and inputted into the IoT management system by a network operator or user.)(¶0052).
As for Claims 28, 35, and 42, Shurtleff discloses
present, via a graphical user interface, a summary view of a health state of at least a portion of the network (i.e. In some embodiments of the present technology, an IoT management system can measure operational performance of one or more Internet of Things (“IoT”) devices in a network, and can present a representation of the one or more selected operational performance metrics associated with one or more IoT devices in the network in a graphical user interface. The IoT management system can compare the operational performance of the one or more IoT devices in the network to one or more threshold operational performance metrics of the one or more IoT devices, and can present an actionable alert.)(¶0018)
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 26,29-30,33, 36-37, 40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurtleff in view of Cherkas (US 20210328891 A1).
As for Claims 29, 36, and 43, Shurtleff fails to disclose wherein the metrics include one or more of: (a) a latency metric, (b) a packet drop metric, (c) a request-response success rate, or (d) a metric indicating a variation in latency.
In an analogous art Cherkas discloses,
wherein the metrics include one or more of:
(a) a latency metric (i.e. although a subset of the links illustrated in FIG. 4A include an indication of link latency, such may be provided for all links)(¶0089)
(b) a packet drop metric,
(c) a request-response success rate,
or (d) a metric indicating a variation in latency.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the metrics include one or more of: (a) a latency metric, (b) a packet drop metric, (c) a request-response success rate, or (d) a metric indicating a variation in latency as taught by Cherkas for the benefit of tracking a specific metric or characteristic across the network.
As for Claims 30 and 37, Shurtleff fails to disclose wherein the wherein the metrics include a metric pertaining to packets transmitted using one or more of: (a) HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol) or (b) ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol).
In analogous art, Cherkas discloses,
wherein the wherein the metrics include a metric pertaining to packets transmitted using one or more of: (a) HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol)(i.e. Fig. 5D shows bytes being measured(traffic volume or metric) pertaining to packets transmitted using HTTP.)(¶0118; 5D Fig.5) or (b) ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol).
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 29.
As for Claims 26, 33, and 40, Shurtleff in view of Cherkas discloses, in particular Cherkas discloses,
wherein the set of resources includes one or more virtual resources (i.e. the cloud management system 100 has a controller 102 that manages constructs (virtual machine instances) and collects status information from them which includes throughput and path latency.)(¶0043-0044 and 0054).
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ESTRADA whose telephone number is (571) 272-9978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM EST to 4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRIS PARRY can be reached on (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.
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.
/JONATHAN ESTRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 2451 /Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights