DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment filed on August 4, 2025 for the application of Koren et al., for a “High frequency event-based hardware diagnostics” filed on July 6, 2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-28 are pending in the application.
Claims 21-28 have been added.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 4, 2025 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17-18, 20-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20200341868) in view of Hutchings et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20110199117).
As per claims 1, 11, and 22, Carpenter discloses an apparatus/a method, comprising: operational circuitry; and Hardware Diagnostics Circuitry (HDC) (Fig. 5) and ([0012], “diagnose and/or troubleshoot issues”), to:
repeatedly log diagnostics data sources in the operational circuitry ([0012], “Log messages are data generated by systems, components of systems, applications, devices, etc. that can be used to monitor its activities and to diagnose and/or troubleshoot issues”) according to a common pre-trigger logging set, repeatedly log trigger data sources in the operational circuitry, repeatedly evaluate trigger rules ([0030], “At stage D, rules engine 240 determines and applies all or some of rules 255 against log messages 230 in order to determine whether to discard or store log messages 230 in storage 215. Rules 255 could identify the level of log messages 230. Rules 255 could determine which log message levels to store. For example, rules 255 could be used to identify which log messages are informational or trace level messages. Rules 255 could further determine to store previously observed trace level messages when an error event is triggered. The stored log messages can then be used to diagnose the error”) and ([0031], “At stage E, if rules engine 240 determines that log messages 230 are to be stored based on real-time events, then log messages 230 are stored in storage 215. Log messages 225 represents log 230 after it has been stored in storage 215. Log messages 225 may be formatted prior to storage. The log messages may be stored in files or in one or more tables in a database”).
Carpenter fails to explicitly disclose a post-trigger logging duration.
Hutchings of analogous art teaches:
in response to triggering of a given trigger event by a given trigger rule ([0267]), start logging the diagnostics data sources according to a post-trigger logging set that is specific for the given trigger rule ([0275], “post-trigger mode”), wherein the given trigger rule includes a configurable parameter that specifies a post-trigger logging duration ([0250], “a post-trigger mode that defines an interval after the triggering event fires in which to collect data”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Carpenter and Hutchings and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their methods. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of providing an efficient use of the trace buffer (Hutchings, [0010]).
As per claims 2, 12, and 23, Hutchings discloses the post-trigger logging set defined for a first trigger event differs from a second post-trigger logging set defined for a second trigger event rule ([0263]).
As per claims 3, 13, and 24, Hutchings discloses at least one post-trigger logging set is different from the pre-trigger logging set ([0263] and [0275]).
As per claims 4 and 14, Hutchings discloses the HDC is to log the diagnostics data sources in the post-trigger logging set over a defined time interval ([0250], “a post-trigger mode that defines an interval after the triggering event fires in which to collect data”) or up to a defined data size.
As per claims 5, 15, and 25, Hutchings discloses the defined time interval or defined data size is specified per trigger rule ([0263] and [0250]).
As per claims 7, 17, and 27, Hutchings discloses at least one of the trigger rules specifies a condition to be met by the trigger data sources over a defined time interval ([0275], “the post-trigger mode allows users to view what occurs within the primary circuit structure immediately or some time after a specified condition occurs”).
As per claims 8 and 18, Hutchings discloses at least one of the trigger rules specifies a statistical condition to be met by the trigger data sources ([0249] and [0252]).
As per claims 10 and 20, Carpenter discloses the operational circuitry is to communicate over a bus, and wherein one or more of the trigger rules relate to performance of bus communication by the operational circuitry ([0016], “In this embodiment of computer system 100, computing management system 110 may manage and/or monitor resources 100a-100n for various purposes such as performance tuning and troubleshooting. For example, computing management system 110 may monitor resources 100a-100n in order to detect changes in the operational status of each of resources 100a-100n. The changes in the operational status may be determined through the log messages generated by each of resources 100a-100n and then collected by computing management system 110 for analysis. In another embodiment, computing management system 110 may be included in computer system 100”) and ([0017], “The communication medium 120 may use any one or more of a variety of networks or another type of communication connection as known to those skilled in the art. The type of communication connection used may vary with certain system parameters and requirements, such as those related to bandwidth and throughput required in accordance with a rate of log messages as may be generated by resources 100a-100n. The communication connection may be a network connection, bus, and/or another type of data links, such as a hardwire or other connections known in the art. For example, communication medium 120 may use the internet, an intranet, a network or other wireless or other hardwired connection(s) by which resources 100a-100n may access and communicate with computing management system 110”).
As per claim 21, Hutchings discloses the configurable parameter specifies a post-trigger logging duration of a predefined time period ([0250], “a post-trigger mode that defines an interval after the triggering event fires in which to collect data”).
Claims 6, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20200341868) in view of Hutchings et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20110199117) and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9218231).
As per claims 6, 16, and 26, Carpenter in view of Hutchings fails to explicitly disclose logging images.
Li of analogous art teaches the HDC is to log images of the diagnostics data sources that are time-coherent relative to one another (col. 8, lines 21-33, “The diagnosis controller 402 receives a report on a problem in the operation of the monitored software product from the diagnosis agent 401, analyzes the report and captures the entire environment (e.g., a customer virtual server image or a testing virtual server image) including the software product according to the analysis results, and deploys the environment in a diagnosis cloud, so as to reproduce the problem in the diagnosis cloud and perform diagnosis. The diagnosis controller 402 may first store the captured virtual server image in an image repository 404, and then deploy the virtual server stored in the image repository 404 in the diagnosis cloud”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Carpenter and Li and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their methods. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving the release and provisioning with minimal interaction of providers of service (Li, col. 3, lines 44-52).
Claims 9, 19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20200341868) in view of Hutchings et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20110199117) and further in view of Chandrasekaran et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20220052936).
As per claims 9, 19, and 28, Carpenter in view of Hutchings fails to explicitly disclose trigger rules relate to performance of packet processing.
Chandrasekaran of analogous art teaches the operational circuitry is to process communication packets, and wherein one or more of the trigger rules relate to performance of packet processing by the operational circuitry ([0004], “The method can include receiving a plurality of input packets of a plurality of network traffic flows and transmitting a plurality of output packets of the plurality a network traffic flows, wherein a data plane of the network appliance is configured to generate the plurality of output packets by processing the plurality of input packets. The method can additionally include monitoring the plurality of network traffic flows, wherein the data plane is configured to monitor the plurality of network traffic flows in accordance with a flow monitoring policy and is configured to measure a flow metric of the plurality of network traffic flows in accordance with the flow monitoring policy. The method can further include triggering a reporting policy, wherein the data plane is configured to trigger the reporting policy in response to determining that a criterion associated with the flow metric is met by at least one of the plurality of network traffic flows. The method can yet further include transmitting at least one flow reporting packet, wherein the network appliance is configured to transmit the at least one flow reporting packet to a flow diagnostic recipient in accordance with the reporting policy”) and ([0148], “At block 2102, the network appliance can transmit a plurality of output packets of the plurality a network traffic flows, wherein a data plane of the network appliance is configured to generate the plurality of output packets by processing the plurality of input packets. At block 2103 the network appliance can monitor the plurality of network traffic flows, wherein the data plane is configured to monitor the plurality of network traffic flows in accordance with a flow monitoring policy and is configured to measure a flow metric of the plurality of network traffic flows in accordance with the flow monitoring policy. At block 2102, the network appliance can trigger a reporting policy, wherein the data plane is configured to trigger the reporting policy in response to determining that a criterion associated with the flow metric is met by at least one of the plurality of network traffic flows. At block 2102, the network appliance can transmit at least one flow reporting packet, wherein the network appliance is configured to transmit the at least one flow reporting packet to a flow diagnostic recipient in accordance with the reporting policy”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Carpenter and Chandrasekaran and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their methods. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving the flexibility to adapt to changes in the network protocols through monitoring and triggering. (Chandrasekaran, [0002] and [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on August 4, 2025 necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection in this Office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights