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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 01/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
in limitation “minimal utility” in claims 8 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimal” is no defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the examiner disregards this term in this limitation.
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 112(b) for their dependence on rejected claim 8 and 18.
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being unclear for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim discloses in line 9 loading a minimal utility (min_pkt). It is unclear to the examiner as min_pkt or minimal utility is to mean, as the definition is not clear in the specification. For examination purposes, the examiner disregards this term in this limitation.
Claims 9-10 are similarly rejected as seen above due to their dependence on a claim rejected above
Claims 18-19 are similarly rejected as seen above as having similar limitations and clarity issues.
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) 1-3, 12-13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lincourt et al. (US 20240330533 A1) hereinafter Lincourt in view of Guy et al (US 20220276809 A1) hereinafter Guy.
Regarding claim 1, Lincourt discloses
An apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more components of the apparatus to perform operations comprising: (Lincourt [0055]-[0056] and figure 6 discloses a processing device comprising of memory, processor and [0060] further discloses of a storage media storing executable program code)
receiving a request to upgrade software for a switch; (Lincourt [0018] discloses network devices including routers and switches. Then describes the digital twin virtually representing the hardware component. Lincourt [0027] further discloses a user wanting to simulate a change, interpreted as update, to a given device, i.e. a switch, a user can request digital twin management engine)
generating, using an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) simulator, (Lincourt [0048] discloses the digital twin management engine on Lincourt can further be implemented in the digital twin themselves to perform the artificial aging. Then, in [0051] and Figure 6 further demonstrate the processing platform for the aging may comprise of an ASIC on [0059]. Thus, the digital twin management engine is an ASIC and generates the digital twin)
a digital twin to store a first image and a first configuration of the switch; generating, using the digital twin, (Lincourt [0027] a digital twin generated by the digital twin management engine. The digital twin is constructed using image/snapshot of the system along with in Lincourt [0028] data configurations)
a second image and a second configuration by replaying the first configuration on the first image; (Lincourt [0042] and [0046] and Fig. 3B discloses generating device designs such as configurations by comprising results of simulated workload executions. Further, the “replaying” limitation is being interpreted merely as running the configuration/image on the digital twin with the updated software in order to produce an example state afterwards)
Lincourt lacks explicitly
and communicating the second image and the second configuration from the digital twin to an ASIC memory of an ASIC associated with the switch by applying batch direct memory access (DMA).
Guy teaches
and communicating the second image and the second configuration from the digital twin to an ASIC memory of an ASIC associated with the switch by applying batch direct memory access (DMA). (Guy [0014] discloses a controller that can upgrade or reconfigure software executing on ACC through packets received through packet processing device. This is where the ACCE can execute control plane OS used by the controller to configure operation of packet processing pipeline via, remote direct memory access. Further, [0024] discloses the communication interface writing/reading to dynamic random-access memory with [0025] disclosing the communication interface supporting communications with more than two control planes such as control places executing on packet processing device and/or host. On [0028], the packet processing circuitry discloses being implemented using one or more ASIC, thus showing the controller writing to an ASIC memory of a device, via the communication interface, by applying DMA, an upgrade for the device. The combination of the references together is used in order for the digital twin, instead of the controller, would be able to transfer the results to the switch that needs the software upgrade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lincourt to incorporate the teachings of Guy to “communicating the second image and the second configuration from the digital twin to an ASIC memory of an ASIC associated with the switch by applying batch direct memory access (DMA)” in order to transfer the updated information to the appropriate place and apply the update accordingly, thus making the process not require manual upload and is done automatically once the simulation has concluded.
Regarding claim 2, Lincourt discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, the operations further comprising: in response to receiving the request to update the software for the switch, issuing a command to reload the digital twin with the first image and the first configuration on the switch. (Lincourt [0046] - [0047] discloses generation of a plurality of iterations of simulated configurations/workloads to generate a plurality of datasets. In doing so, this requires the digital twin with the original configuration (first image/configuration) to load/reload in order to make the different iterations and processes.
Regarding claim 3, Lincourt discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, the operations further comprising: attempting to identify, by the digital twin, an anomaly while replaying the first configuration on the first image. (Lincourt [0041]-[0042] discloses results of the simulated workload executions as well as behaviors detected such as hardware/software/data errors. Thus, showing that during the simulation, an anomaly is being detected)
With regards to claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
With regards to claim 20, it is a medium having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lincourt et al. (US 20240330533 A1) hereinafter Lincourt in view of Guy et al (US 20220276809 A1) hereinafter Guy and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20220191648 A1) hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 5, Lincourt in view of Guy discloses
The apparatus of claim 3
Lincourt in view of Guy lacks
the operations further comprising: in response to not identifying the anomaly, determining that the second configuration is a binary configuration.
Smith teaches
the operations further comprising: in response to not identifying the anomaly, determining that the second configuration is a binary configuration. (Smith [0110] and [0113] discloses receiving instructions such as binary code to be executed by the local machine. This function is stated when the first format (second figuration) is an executable code (binary) the processor platforms can execute the code, demonstrating that the processor platforms are expecting a binary configuration. However, when the first format is uncompiled code (ASCII), the system will require preparation task to transform the first format into a second format in order to execute the code, thus demonstrating that the uncompiled code is an anomaly, as it is not the expected binary configuration, therefore the configuration is ASCII and will need an additional step in order to execute. Thus, the machine demonstrates the expected/non-anomaly code received is a binary code, while the unexpected/anomaly code is ASCII).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lincourt in view of Guy to incorporate the teachings of Smith to “the operations further comprising: in response to not identifying the anomaly, determining that the second configuration is a binary configuration” in order to avoid system errors on the switch when the switch is expecting a binary configuration but instead receiving a different format. This determination allows the system to be able to convert the format into readable code instead of producing an error on the system by incorrectly interpreting the wrong configuration, thus preventing downtime and improving efficiency.
With regards to claim 15, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lincourt et al. (US 20240330533 A1) hereinafter Lincourt in view of Guy et al (US 20220276809 A1) hereinafter Guy and further in view of Koh et al. (US 20250138515 A1) hereinafter Koh.
Regarding claim 6, Lincourt in view of Guy discloses
The apparatus of claim 1,
Lincourt in view of Guy lacks
The first configuration is a binary configuration, and the second image and the second configuration are stored in a virtual shadow memory of the digital twin
Koh teaches
The first configuration is a binary configuration, and the second image and the second configuration are stored in a virtual shadow memory of the digital twin (Koh [0008] discloses extracting configuration information based on the information extracted from the industrial device. Then, configuration information may be a binary protocol. This demonstrates the configuration being the first configuration before later being updated/modified and in binary. [0078] - [0079] further discloses receiving configuration information that is then automatically updated and stored in storage, where the storage can be virtual memory. In combination with Lincourt in view of Guy, the update in this instance would the second image and the second configuration and being stored on the memory of the digital twin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lincourt in view of Guy to incorporate the teachings of Koh to “The first configuration is a binary configuration, and the second image and the second configuration are stored in a virtual shadow memory of the digital twin” in order to store the new configuration generated by the digital twin on the digital twin in order to see the effects the new configuration would have first before implementing on the switch.
With regards to claim 16, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lincourt et al. (US 20240330533 A1) hereinafter Lincourt in view of Guy et al (US 20220276809 A1) hereinafter Guy and in further view of Koh et al. (US 20250138515 A1) hereinafter Koh in further view of Lee et al (US 20250341825 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 7, Lincourt in view of Guy in further view of Koh discloses
The apparatus of claim 6,
the operations further comprising: performing, by the digital twin, batch DMA to transfer the second image and the second configuration (Guy [0014] discloses a controller that can upgrade or reconfigure software executing on ACC through packets received through packet processing device. This is where the ACCE can execute control plane OS used by the controller to configure operation of packet processing pipeline via, remote direct memory access. Further, [0024] discloses the communication interface writing/reading to dynamic random-access memory with [0025] disclosing the communication interface supporting communications with more than two control planes such as control places executing on packet processing device and/or host. On [0028], the packet processing circuitry discloses being implemented using one or more ASIC, thus showing the controller writing to an ASIC memory of a device, via the communication interface, by applying DMA, an upgrade for the device. The combination of the references together is used in order for the digital twin, instead of the controller, would be able to transfer the results to the switch that needs the software upgrade.
stored in the virtual shadow memory of the digital twin to the ASIC memory of the ASIC associated with the switch (Koh [0008] discloses extracting configuration information based on the information extracted from the industrial device. Then, configuration information may be a binary protocol. This demonstrates the configuration being the first configuration before later being updated/modified and in binary. [0078] - [0079] further discloses receiving configuration information that is then automatically updated and stored in storage, where the storage can be virtual memory. In combination with Lincourt in view of Guy, the update in this instance would the second image and the second configuration and being stored on the memory of the digital twin).
Lincourt in view of Guy in further view of Koh lacks explicitly
once replaying the first configuration is complete
Lee teaches
once replaying the first configuration is complete (Lee [0098] - [0101] and figure 4 discloses testing/simulating and obtaining results run on the digital twin. Afterward, when the control program is completely set (replay is complete), the digital twin transfers the program to the equipment operation device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lincourt in view of Guy in further view of Koh to incorporate the teachings of Lee to “once replaying the first configuration is complete” in order to generate a finished product and transfer only after completion to the switch to ensure the switch will have a properly functioning software.
With regards to claim 17, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 14 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.
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner
can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-3:30pm.
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,
Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193