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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 14-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The written description rejection of claim 14 has been modified based on the amendment, which does not have support in the originally filed disclosure that does not describe any of the claimed “adaptations” to a configuration module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-7, 14-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Written Description Issue #1
Claim 14 features the following limitations:
a configuration module adapted for: monitoring configuration information stored in the system database;
detecting when changes have been made to an entry the system database;
determining whether the changes to the entry includes a change to a configuration item; and
in response to determining that the change to the entry include configuration changes, sending a notification to a configuration client.
The functionality of the claimed configuration module appears to be described as being performed by the disclosed OpenConfig module. The applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not describe any adaptations to an OpenConfig module that are made for the purpose of carrying out the limitations claimed in claims 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20. The applicant has not disclosed how the disclosed OpenConfig module would be “adapted to” carry out the claimed functionality; the applicant does not disclose any such adaptations or even use any variant on the word “adapt” in their original disclosure. Claims 15, 17, 19 and 20 cover “further” adaptations which implies adaptations which are different than the adaptations of claims 14. If the applicant wants to claim executing, by the processor, configuration module software that is stored in the memory, then the applicant should do so using clear language.
Written Description Issue #2
Claims 4 and 24 feature the following limitation:
wherein determining whether the changes to the one or more database entries include changes to configuration items comprises determining whether any of the changed nodes of the Yang tree are configuration nodes.
The applicant does not define the claimed term “configuration nodes” in the specification. See paragraphs 34 and 73. The Examiner has cited documentation with this Office Action which explains the state of the art regarding Yang trees and OpenConfig documentation. The state of art does not provide a definition for the claimed “configuration nodes”. It is therefore impossible to determine what would make the changed nodes of Yang tree be “configuration nodes”. The applicant has failed to describe the invention sufficiently to provide “a full and clear description of the invention for which a patent is sought in the manner prescribed by 35 USC section 112(a)” (see MPEP section 2162). As the invention is not described, the meaning of the claim cannot be ascertained and searched.
Written Description Issue #3
Claims 5 and 25 feature the following limitation:
responsive to receiving the message indicating completion of the set session, closing the set session, incrementing a local counter and marking a last-configuration node of the Yang tree to indicate that the configuration module made a last configuration change.
Claims 6 and 26 feature the following limitations
when a response is received indicating a changed database entry resulting from a command line interface (CLI), incrementing a local counter and marking a last-configuration node of the Yang tree to indicate that a source other than the configuration module made a last configuration change.
Paragraphs 75 and 76 provide literal support for a “last-configuration node” of a Yang tree but provide no description of what constitutes a “last-configuration change” or a “last-configuration node” of a Yang tree. The Examiner has cited documentation with this Office Action which explains the state of the art regarding Yang trees and OpenConfig documentation. The state of art does not provide a definition for the claimed “last-configuration change”. It is therefore impossible to determine what a last configuration change would be. Additionally, it is not clear what a “last-configuration node” of Yang tree is or how such a node would be marked. Such a concept is not apparent in the art. The applicant has failed to describe the invention sufficiently to provide “a full and clear description of the invention for which a patent is sought in the manner prescribed by 35 USC section 112(a)” (see MPEP section 2162). As the invention is not described, the meaning of the claim cannot be ascertained and searched.
Written Description Issue #4
Claim 7 features the following limitation:
wherein sending a notification to the configuration client in response to determining that the changes to the database entries include configuration changes comprises adding an on-change node to a Yang tree of the network device
The Yang tree is not disclosed as being part of the network device which hosts the system database. As shown in Figure 6 and described in paragraphs 33 and 35 the Yang tree is implemented by the openconfig module and the openconfig module is disclosed as being in communication with the device which hosts the configuration agent and database, so it is clearly not part of that same device as claimed. Additionally, the original disclosure does not state that sending a notification comprises adding a node to a Yang tree; the applicant disclosed the opposite where a client is notified after an on-change node is added to the Yang tree.
The Examiner notes that claim 7 was not found to be taught by the prior art but it will be reevaluated once the applicant addresses the written description issues with claims 1 and 7.
Written Description Issue #5
Claims 17 covers the following:
wherein the configuration module is further adapted for updating a node corresponding to the changed entry in a configuration tree based on the notification
The applicant did not originally disclose a limitation of “updating a node corresponding to” a changed entry in “a configuration tree based on the notification”. The applicant did not disclose the term “a configuration tree” or updating a node corresponding to such a tree.
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.
Claims 5, 6, 20, 25, and 26 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.
Claims 5 and 25 recites the limitation "the configuration module" in the first limitation of these claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in either claim.
Claims 5, 6, 25, and 26 recites the limitation "the Yang tree". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the configuration tree". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 8,489,210 to Bliss et al.
As to claim 1, Bliss teaches a method for detecting configuration changes in a network device, the method comprising: monitoring configuration information stored in a system database of a network device (col. 6, lines 20-31), the configuration information associated with a configuration of the network device (col. 1, lines 42-61 explain the content pertains to the configuration of network devices); detecting when changes have been made to one or more database entries in the system database based on a comparison of a value of a configuration counter with an expected value (col. 6, lines 29-31, the version is a “configuration counter”), wherein the configuration counter is maintained in association with the system database and is modified based on changes to the system database (col. 6, lines 29-31, the version is modified based on changes to the system database content); determining whether the changes to the one or more database entries include changes to configuration items associated with the configuration of the network device (col. 6, lines 32-44); and in response to determining that the changes to the database entries include changes to configuration items, sending a notification to a configuration client (col. 6, lines 32-44).
As to claims 14 and 21, they rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claims 2, 15, and 22, see Figure 7 and corresponding description.
As to claims 3, 16, and 23, see col. 6, lines 20-31.
As to claim 17, see col. 7, line 66-col. 8, line 9, the backup data is considered a node corresponding to a changed entry in a configuration tree (a concept not defined by the applicant).
As to claim 18, see col. 9, line 61-col. 10, line 40.
As to claim 19, see Figure 7.
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454