UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`léfiw
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box I450
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`09/703,942
`
`I0/31/2000
`
`Eric A. Pulsipher
`
`10008102-I
`
`4047
`
`22879
`
`7590
`
`06/28/2005
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
`P 0 BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
`FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400
`
`EXAMINER
`
`H0. CHUONG T
`
`2664
`
`DATE MAILED: 06/28/2005
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`1
`
`HP 2006
`
`SerViceNow V. HP
`
`IPR20 15007 17
`
`

`
`Office Action Summary
`
`_
`
`Application No.
`
`09/703,942
`
`Examine,
`
`CHUONG T. HO
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`PULSIPHER ET AL.
`
`-
`
`M Unit
`
`2664 _
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE _3_‘ MONTH(S) FROM
`THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If the period for reply specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a reply within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days will be considered timely.
`-
`lf NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even iftimely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZ Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11 April 2005.
`
`2a)[:| This action is FINAL.
`2b)IZ This action is non-final.
`3)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for fonnal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)IZI CIaim(s) $1141;-2_l) is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above c|aim(s) j is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)lZ C|aim(s) 1-3 5-7 and 15-20 is/are allowed.
`
`6)lZl C|aim(s) 8 and 10-14 is/are rejected.
`
`7)® C|aim(s) Q is/are objected to.
`8)EI Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)l:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`10)l:| The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)|:] accepted or b)I] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`11)[j The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:l Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)I:| All
`b)U Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`Copies ofthe certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the lntemational Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) D Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-943)
`3) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO—1449 or PTO/SBlO8)
`Paper No(s)lMai| Date
`.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`PaPef N°(3)/M3" Dat°- __-
`5) CI Notice of Informal Patent Application (PT0152)
`6) E] Other:
`.
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 1-04)
`
`Office Actlon Summary
`2
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 11
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 09/703,942
`
`,
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The amendment filed 04/11/05 have been entered and made of record.
`
`Applicant's amendment filed 04/11/05 with respect to claims 1-3, 5-20 have
`
`been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 04/11/05 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`In the page 7, lines 26-28, the applicant alleged “the proposed combination of
`
`Liang (U.S.Patent No. 5,732,086) in view of Wood (U.S.Patent No. 6,405,248) does not
`
`disclose, teach, or suggest at least the features of “creating a list of existing tuples from
`
`an existing topology representing nodal connections of a network at a prior time”.
`
`The Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
`
`Liang (U.S.Patent No. 5,732,086) discloses “creating (updating) a list of existing
`
`tuples from an existing topology (its topology database) representing nodal connections
`
`of a network at a prior time” (see abstract, the originating node constructs and stores a
`
`topology table entry which includes data from received ACK messages. Each entry
`
`includes a node identifier , an originating node link identifier and a neighbor node
`
`identifier from which an ACK message was received and a neighbor node link identifier
`
`A for the link) (see col. 5, lines 55-57,. An UPDATE message includes the same first five
`
`fields listed above for the ACK message as well asa field which contains the entire
`
`“topology table row” for the node originating an UPDATE message) (see col. 8, lines 13-
`
`15, the “Adjusting” state means that the node is receiving topology update information
`
`from other nodes and is merging the changes into its topology table) (see col. 7, lines
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 09/703,942
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`20-24, to the extent that other nodes receive duplicate information, that information is
`
`discarded and the row data is updated accordingly. Each topology table can further
`
`updated during run time through use of the Update message).
`
`Wood (U.S.Patent No. 6,405,248) discloses “creating a list of existing tuples
`
`from an existing topology (topology database) representing nodal connections of a
`
`network at a prior time” (see abstract, creating an accurate topology map of a given
`
`network by: obtaining a list of managed network device....Filters may then be utilized on
`
`the source address tables in order to provide more accurate topology results.
`
`Connections between nodes are also resolved by utilizing sorting methods).
`
`Therefore, “the proposed combination of Liang (U.S.Patent No. 5,732,086) in
`
`view of Wood (U.S.Patent No. 6,405,248) disclose, teach, or suggest at least the
`
`features of “creating a list of existing tuples from an existing topology representing nodal
`
`connections of a network at a prior time”
`
`3
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-20 are pending.
`H
`‘ Claim Rejections - 35 usc § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 8, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Liang et al. (U.S.Patent No. 5,732,086) in view of Wood (U.S.Patent No. 6,405,248
`
`B1).
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 09/703,942
`
`'
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`In the claim 8, see figure 3, Liang et al. discloses topology table 26 (tuples)
`
`which comprises: node identifier (host identifier), link port (port sepecification) (see col.
`5, lines 7-15, lines 21-25, col. 6, lines 5-9, col. 7, lines 20-23, col. 14-16); comprising:
`
`A topology database that stores an existing topology of a network using tuples
`
`(topology table 26, see figure 3) , wherein each tuple includes a host identifier, p_ort
`
`specification for a node in the network from the existing topology representing nodal
`connections of the network at a prior time (see col. 5, lines 7-15, lines 21-25, col. 6,
`
`lines 5-9, col. 7, lines 20-23, col. 14-16);
`
`A topology converter connected to the topology database that receives new
`
`tuples that represent new nodal connections, and compare the new tuples with the
`
`existing topology to identify changes in the network by comparing the host identifier,
`
`port specification, and determines differences between the new tuples with the existing
`
`tuples representing nodal connections of the network at the prior time (see col. 7, lines
`
`20-23) (see col. 8, lines 13-16);
`
`However, Liang et al. is silent to disclosing. tuples comprising interface
`
`information.
`
`H
`
`Wood discloses creating an accurate topology map of a given network by:
`
`obtaining a list of managed network device; identifying link port and node port....device
`
`interface information (see abstract); comprising:
`
`Each of the tuples (topology map) comprises interface information, a port
`
`specification, host identifier (see abstract, table 1, col. 6, lines 10-20).
`
`A
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 09/703,942
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`Liang and Wood are directed to routing packets using IP protocol. Wood
`
`recognizes that there may be conflicting source address. Hence, it would have been
`
`obvious to use the interface information of Wood in Liang as it would have resolved
`
`source address conflicts when routing using thetable (tuples) of both Liang and Wood.
`
`6.
`
`In the claim 10, Liang et al. discloses updating a topology database with a new
`
`topology (see col. 7, lines 20-23).
`
`7.
`
`In the claims 11, 12, Liang et al. discloses the step of comparing comprises
`
`identifying duplicate tuples that appear both in the list of existing tuples and in the new
`
`tuples, and maintaining a current status of the topology for these tuples (see col. 7, lines
`
`20-23).
`
`8.
`In the claims 13, 14, Liang et al. discloses the step of comparing comprises
`searching for a host of a new singly-heard host link tuple or a new multi-heard host link
`
`tuple in the list of existing tuples (see col. 7, lines 20-23).
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-7, 15-20 are allowed.
`
`Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would
`
`be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
`
`claim and any intervening claims.
`
`The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art
`
`(5732086, 6405248, 4644532, 5727157, 6160796) of record does not appear to teach
`
`or render obvious the claimed limitations in combinations with the specific added
`
`limitations, as recited from independent claims 1, 15: “creating a new list of a plurality of
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 09/703,942
`
`-
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`tuples for a topology of the network at a current time, wherein the new list of tuples
`
`represent nodal connections of the network at the current time”.
`
`Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later
`
`than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably
`
`accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on
`
`Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
`
`.
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to CHUONG T HO whose telephone number is (571) 272-
`
`3133. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
`
`The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding
`
`_
`
`is assigned is 703-872-9306.
`
`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).
`
`06/ 1 6/05
`
`GTON CHIN
`"ERVISORY PATENT EXAMIESS ‘