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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 03/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding identifying tags contained in a plurality of logs of telemetry data. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Hamilton teach, “the metadata may include a timestamp value (e.g., a value identifying the time at which the telemetry data 508 was generated), a query identifier, a session identifier, a warehouse identifier (e.g., a warehouse name), a database name, a schema identifier, a source name, a user name, and the like” see para. 93; for further clarification Hamilton teach, (See para. 106-107 and Fig. 15). The examiner respectfully disagrees since in the applicant’s claim 1 there is no defined which type of tags are being identified, in fact the Applicant defines the identification of tags is “the CPU 204 identifies tags, keywords, or other identifiers contained in logs of the acquired telemetry data” (see applicant’s specification para. 41). Therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language in particular to the applicant’s tags, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Hamilton to teach this concept.
identifying tags contained in a plurality of logs of telemetry data, para. 93, “the metadata may include a timestamp value (e.g., a value identifying the time at which the telemetry data 508 was generated), a query identifier, a session identifier, a warehouse identifier (e.g., a warehouse name), a database name, a schema identifier, a source name, a user name, and the like”
wherein the telemetry data is generated by applications running on a radio access network (RAN) node of the cellular network para. 93, “the data enrichment component 510 enriches the telemetry data 508 with additional metadata”,
B. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding wherein the telemetry data is generated by applications running on a radio access network (RAN) node of the cellular network. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Hamilton teach, “the operations of method 800 may be performed by components of the network-based database system 102, such as a network node (e.g., an ET manager 132 executing on a network node of the compute service manager 108) or a computing device (e.g., client device 114) which may be implemented as machine 900 of FIG. 9 performing the disclosed functions”, see para. 170; for further clarification Hamilton teach, “The machine 900 may comprise, but not be limited to, a server computer, a client computer, a personal computer (PC), a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a netbook, a smartphone, a mobile device, a network router, a network switch, a network bridge, or any machine capable of executing the instructions 916… communication components 964 may include wired communication components, wireless communication components, cellular communication components, and other communication components to provide communication via other modalities”, (See para. 170 -180 and Fig. 9). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Hamilton to teach the telemetry data being generated by applications running on a network node with cellular capabilities as a radio access node would be able to do so. Thus, Hamilton still meet the scope of the limitations.
C. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 15 regarding sanitizing log content. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Dalgaard teach, “the data is processed to reduce the number of metrics points or filter for error logs”, see “para. 44, Fig. 2; for further clarification Dalgaard teach, “based on the interference estimated in operation S644, the first user equipment UE1 may assign the subframes for the PSSCH to be transmitted (i.e., collision subframes)”, see para. 111 and Fig. 17. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Dalgaard to teach sanitizing log content. The examiner respectfully disagrees since in the applicant’s claim 1 there is no details as to sanitizing log content, in fact the Applicant defines that sanitizing log content is “The data may be sanitized to remove duplicate entries, either before, during or after being routed” (see applicant’s specification para. 38). Therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language in particular to the applicant’s sanitizing log content, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Dalgaard to teach this concept by filtering the logs and eliminating errors like for example the well-known duplicated entries in a database. Thus, Dalgaard combined in the system of Hamilton still meet the scope of the limitations.
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 of this title, 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) 1-5, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (U.S. Pub. 20240202187) in view of Dalgaard et al. (U.S. Pat. 12321250).
Regarding claim 1 Hamilton disclose, a method of providing data for observability on a cellular network, comprising:
identifying tags contained in a plurality of logs of telemetry data, para. 93, “the metadata may include a timestamp value (e.g., a value identifying the time at which the telemetry data 508 was generated), a query identifier, a session identifier, a warehouse identifier (e.g., a warehouse name), a database name, a schema identifier, a source name, a user name, and the like”
wherein the telemetry data is generated by applications running on a radio access network (RAN) node of the cellular network para. 170-180, Fig. 9, “the operations of method 800 may be performed by components of the network-based database system 102, such as a network node (e.g., an ET manager 132 executing on a network node of the compute service manager 108) or a computing device (e.g., client device 114) which may be implemented as machine 900 of FIG. 9 performing the disclosed functions”, and
wherein the telemetry data resides within a user plane on a public cloud of the cellular network, the logs of telemetry data including first logs and second logs para. 38, “The client device 114 corresponds to a user of one of the multiple client accounts supported by the network-based database system 102. A user may utilize the client device 114 to submit data storage, retrieval, and analysis requests to the compute service manager 108”;
wherein the RAN node includes (i) a central unit (CU) that resides on the public cloud of the cellular network para. 62, “the execution nodes shown in FIG. 3 each includes one data cache and one processor”,
(ii) a distributed unit (DU) that resides on a private cloud of the cellular network such that the DU is in communication with the CU on the public cloud of the cellular network para. 62, “The caches shown in FIG. 3 store, in the local execution node, data that was retrieved from one or more data storage devices in the cloud storage platform 104”, and
(iii) a radio unit (RU) under control of the DU para. 178, “Machine 900 includes processors 910, memory and a radio-frequency integrated circuit (RFIC), another processor, or any suitable combination thereof”.
Hamilton does not specifically disclose analyzing the tags to identify the first logs as logs of the plurality of logs that have a first telemetry characteristic and the second logs as other logs of the plurality of logs that have a second telemetry characteristic different from the first telemetry characteristic. However, Dalgaard teach, “a user 134 may provide data to configure an observability pipeline 108 by specifying one or more sources of telemetry data (e.g., an identifier of a cluster, an identifier of a specific container instance 150, a tag that can be applied to various resources, a wildcard or value or format to match against a source identifier, etc.)”; see col. 13, lines 15-20.
Dalgaard further teach, routing the first logs to a first storage on the public cloud and the second logs to a second storage on the public cloud that is different from the first storage so that the logs are observable by an observability layer implemented on the public cloud of the cellular network col. 3, lines 0-7, lines 55-59, “many different users may want different types of telemetry data from an application and may want their type of telemetry data processed differently (e.g., at a higher or lower level of granularity) and/or sent to a different destination (e.g., to a storage location, to a cloud-internal service, to a cloud-external service, etc.), and this may change over time”, furthermore, “these users can reduce their observability costs by retaining control of how the data is processed to reduce the number of metrics points or filter for error logs”.
Hamilton and Dalgaard are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to managing and processing telemetry data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dalgaard in the system of Hamilton so the system can accurately determine and classify the data collected and storage it according to the configured classification. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the information is storage in an organized manner so that it can be accessed and updated the fastest way without having to manage unnecessary loads of data and filtering the error logs.
Regarding claim 2 Hamilton disclose, further comprising: analyzing each of the first logs to identify log content that matches with log content of other logs of the first logs para. 19, “Users and/or executing processes that are associated with a given customer account may, via one or more types of clients, be able to cause data to be ingested into the database, and may also be able to manipulate the data, add additional data, remove data, run queries against the data, generate views of the data, and so forth”.
Regarding claim 3 Hamilton disclose, further comprising:
sanitizing the log content of the first logs para. 19, “Users and/or executing processes that are associated with a given customer account may, remove data”; and configuring the sanitized log content of the first logs containing matching log content into a common language for observability in the observability layer of the cellular network para. 96, “MET 134 may provide a limited set of query commands that are available to the user. For example, the query commands may include SHOW, DESC, DROP, TRUNCATE, DELETE, ALTER TABLE ADD/DROP ROW ACCESS POLICY. In some embodiments, other query operations/commands may be disallowed”.
Regarding claim 4 Hamilton disclose, wherein sanitizing the log content of the first logs comprises deleting duplicate first logs para. 96, “the query commands may include SHOW, DESC, DROP, TRUNCATE, DELETE, ALTER TABLE ADD/DROP ROW ACCESS POLICY”.
Regarding claim 5 Hamilton disclose, wherein configuring the first logs into the common language comprises transforming the first logs containing the matching log content into a same format para. 105, “The OpenTelemetry library then generates outputs (i.e., trace events) in a standard format. In some aspects, the telemetry output is reformatted (e.g., to structured telemetry data) to be suitable for subsequent processing”.
Regarding claim 11 Hamilton disclose, wherein analyzing the tags to identify the first logs and the second logs includes parsing the tags for predetermined words or phrases para. 19, “Users and/or executing processes that are associated with a given customer account may, via one or more types of clients, be able to cause data to be ingested into the database, and may also be able to manipulate the data, add additional data, remove data, run queries against the data, generate views of the data, and so forth”.
Regarding claim 12 Hamilton disclose, wherein a characteristic that is determined for each log as the first telemetry characteristic or the second telemetry characteristic is a severity of each log para. 97, “the trace event data that is collected by MET instance 506 and entered into the MET 134 may be configured based on log levels assigned to the MET 134”,
each of the first logs in the first storage has high severity telemetry, and each log of the second logs in the second storage has low severity telemetry para. 98, “TE-MET configurations 138 (e.g., trace_level and log_level) can be used for configuring a trace event (e.g., via trace_level) or a log level (e.g., via log level, to configure which logs are collected as trace event data by the MET instance 506)”.
Regarding claim 13 Hamilton disclose, further comprising: deleting the second logs from the second storage para. 96, “the query commands may include SHOW, DESC, DROP, TRUNCATE, DELETE, ALTER TABLE ADD/DROP ROW ACCESS POLICY”, after a predetermined period of time has elapsed para. 120, “the term “span” indicates a data object associated with a named, timed operation that represents a piece of the workflow in a distributed system”.
Regarding claim 14 Hamilton does not specifically disclose, wherein the routing of the first logs to the first storage and the second logs to the second storage is performed by a shipper. However, Dalgaard teach, “many different users may want different types of telemetry data from an application and may want their type of telemetry data processed differently (e.g., at a higher or lower level of granularity) and/or sent to a different destination (e.g., to a storage location, to a cloud-internal service, to a cloud-external service, etc.), and this may change over time”, see col. 3, lines 0-7.
Hamilton and Dalgaard are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to managing and processing telemetry data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dalgaard in the system of Hamilton so the system can accurately determine and classify the data collected and storage it according to the configured classification. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the information is storage in an organized manner so that it can be accessed and updated the fastest way without having to manage unnecessary loads of data.
Regarding claim 15 the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16 the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 18 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 19-20 the limitations of claims 19-20, respectively are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 2-3, respectively.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (U.S. Pub. 20240202187) in view of Dalgaard et al. (U.S. Pat. 12321250), further in view of Mital et al. (U.S. Pat. 12019731).
Regarding claim 6 Hamilton and Dalgaard does not specifically disclose wherein configuring the first logs into the common language occurs in the observability layer of the cellular network before each first log designated as having the first telemetry characteristic is routed to the first storage. However, Mital teach, “all the logs, metrics and traces can be enriched with this unique identity resulting in true observability in the data layer”, see col. 6, lines 11-13.
Hamilton, Dalgaard and Mital are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to managing and processing telemetry data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mital in the system of Hamilton and Dalgaard so the system can accurately determine and classify the data collected and storage it according to the configured classification. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the information is storage in an organized manner so that it can be accessed and updated the fastest way without having to manage unnecessary loads of data.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (U.S. Pub. 20240202187) in view of Dalgaard et al. (U.S. Pat. 12321250), further in view of Mital et al. (U.S. Pat. 12019731); further in view of Otani (EPO. Pub. JP7413034).
Regarding claim 7 Hamilton disclose, further comprising:
acquiring the second logs having the log characteristic from the second storage para. 29, “a MET is a type of table in an event-driven architecture that is provided as a destination for log data generated from UDFs executing in a sandboxed environment”.
Hamilton and Dalgaard does not specifically disclose, configuring the second logs containing the matching log content into the common language for observability in the observability layer of the cellular network. However, Mital teach, “col. 6, lines 11-13, “all the logs, metrics and traces can be enriched with this unique identity resulting in true observability in the data layer”.
Hamilton, Dalgaard and Mital does not specifically disclose, analyzing each of the second logs to identify the matching log content with other logs of the second logs or logs of the first logs. However, Otani teach, “para. 40, “when the log determination unit 152 determines that the first log information matches the second log information, the device control unit 153 controls the storage electronic device so that the storage electronic device stores the first log information”;
Hamilton, Dalgaard, Mital and Otani are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to managing and processing telemetry data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mital and Otani in the system of Hamilton and Dalgaard so the network can collect and correlate vast amounts of telemetry data from all network nodes (clients) and network elements. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable proactive management and analysis of the data to optimize the use of resources.
Regarding claim 17 the limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 7.
Allowed Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, are 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights