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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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 1-20 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. Specifically, support in Applicant's specification could not be found for the feature (the custom pipeline…through a path distinct from a general data forwarding path) in independent claims 1,9,17. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should point out to specific portions of the specification that provide the written description for the feature).
Dependent claims 2-8,10-16,18-20 are rejected because they’re depended on the rejected base claims 1,9,17.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kachare et al (us 2022/0014592) (hereinafter Kachare) in view of Sethuraman et al (us 2019/0281132) (hereinafter Seth) and further in view of Dalgaard et al (us 12,321,250) (hereinafter Dalgaard).
As regarding claim 1, Kachare discloses receiving, by a dedicated piece of hardware on a network from one or more network devices to an edge of the network (see Kachare figure.2 device 206 receives sensor data from wire sensor or wireless sensor, also see figure.5, discloses similar configuration sensor data receives by ssd device 518 via network fabric transport (i.e edge of network); Kachare 0039 discloses the ssd/storage device receives and pre-process using FPGA, ASIC (Kachare 0084)), telemetry data from the one or more network devices for pre-processing prior to transmission to a cloud-based server (Kachare 0039 discloses the ssd/storage device receives and pre-process using FPGA, ASIC (Kachare 0084) before transmit to the cloud (see Kachare core datacenter (i.e. cloud)), wherein the telemetry data is offloaded from other devices on the network to the dedicated piece of hardware and the dedicated piece of hardware is configured for hardware acceleration (see Kachare figure 0053, various different type of sensors (wire or wireless sensor in figure.2) send data to the SSD device for pre-process, sensor data can be offload to SSD controller which is FPGA or ASIC of SSD device for pre-process (see Kachre 0084); It is well known in the art FPGA/ASIC are specialize hardware used to accelerate computation intensive tasks).
Kachare is silent in regard to the concept of identifying, by the dedicated piece of hardware, duplicative records within the telemetry data; generating, by the dedicated piece of hardware, a reduced set of telemetry data that has the duplicative records removed; processing, by the dedicated piece of hardware, the reduced set of telemetry data into a processed dataset and sending, by the dedicated piece of hardware, the processed dataset to the server over the network.
Seth discloses identifying, by the dedicated piece of hardware, duplicative records within the telemetry data (see Seth 0047,0050-0051, gateway with accelerator device such as FPGA,GPU,VPU filter data by removing duplicate data, it is obvious that the identifier of duplicate data is carried out when filter the data); generating, by the dedicated piece of hardware, a reduced set of telemetry data that has the duplicative records removed (see Seth 0051, the gateway with accelerator device such as FPGA,GPU,VPU filters the data by removing the duplicate data); processing, by the dedicated piece of hardware, the reduced set of telemetry data into a processed dataset (see Seth 0051, gateway with accelerator device such as FPGA,GPU,VPU processing the data, therefore it is obvious that the data after processed the process dataset); sending, by the dedicated piece of hardware, the processed dataset to the server over the network (see Seth 0051, gateway with accelerator device such as FPGA,GPU,VPU send the processed data to the core data center 190 (i.e. server)).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Seth to Kachare because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Kachare with Seth’s teaching for the purpose of lower storage cost and reducing transmission resource by filtering the duplicate data.
The combination of Kachare-Seth is silent in regard to the concept of a custom pipeline, wherein the custom pipeline is configured to route the telemetry data from the one or more network devices to the dedicated hardware through a path distinct from a general data forwarding path.
Dalgaard teaches the concept of a custom pipeline (see Dalgaard col.1, lines 61-67, utilize the pipeline that define how and from where to collect telemetry data, how to process that data and where to processed data and where to forward the processed data to; col.13, lines 15-33, user configure the pipeline where the user specifies sources, type of telemetry data to collect, function to apply to the collected data and where to forward that data), wherein the custom pipeline is configured to route the telemetry data from the one or more network devices to the dedicated hardware through a path distinct from a general data forwarding path (see Dalgaard, col.13, lines 15-33, user configure the pipeline where the user specifies sources, type of telemetry data to collect, function to apply to the collected data and where to forward that data, col.14, lines 54-67 to col.15, lines 1-11, the collected data move through the configured pipeline (i.e. a path distinct from a general data forwarding path), forward to a specific processor to process the collected data and further forward to destination if specify in the pipeline).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dalgaard to Kachare-Seth because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Kachare-Seth with Dalgaard’s teaching for the purpose of providing a flexible, easy to configure pipeline to enable simple collection, processing and routing of telemetry data (see Dalgaard col.3, lines 37-43).
As regarding claim 2, Kachare-Seth-Dalgaard discloses the dedicated piece of hardware includes at least one of a Data Processing Unit (DPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), an Application-specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), and a Field-programmable Gate Array (FPGA) (see Kachare 0039,0084, FPGA, ASIC device pre-process the offload sensor data).
As regarding claim 3, Kachare-Seth-Dalgaard discloses the one or more network devices include a server (see Kachare, 0086,0093-0094).
As regarding claim 4, Kachare-Seth-Dalgaard discloses the dedicated piece of hardware is included in the server (see Kachre, 0099-0100, server).
As regarding claim 5, Kachare-Seth-Dalgaard discloses the one or more network devices includes a plurality of servers and at least one router (see Kachare, 0109,0119,0138, router, switches).
As regarding claim 6, Kachare-Seth-Dalgaard discloses the dedicated piece of hardware is included in the at least one router (see Seth 0041-0042, GPU, FPGA in either the gateway, edge node or the server). the same motivation utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 6.
As regarding claim 7, Kachare-Seth-Dalgaard discloses the plurality of servers includes a dedicated server, the dedicated server including the dedicated piece of hardware (see Kachare 0099-0100 server with ssd, which has FPGA,ASIC to pre-process sensor data (0084)).
As regarding claim 8, Kachare-Seth-Dalgaard discloses the processed dataset provides a summary of the telemetry data offloaded to the dedicated piece of hardware (send data to the SSD device for pre-process, sensor data can be offload to SSD controller which is FPGA or ASIC of SSD device for pre-process (see Kachre 0084).
As regarding claims 9-20, the limitations of claims 9-20 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1-8 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459