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 filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that “Therefore, application has included the allowable subject matter in amended independent claim 1 and submits that amended claim 1 is allowable.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant has amended the claim with “at least one of” and “or”, which means that only one of the limitations be met to reject the claimed language. The previously presented claims 6, 13 and 20 required all limitations not just one.
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-Al A 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (WO 2022/0122789) in view of Mowatt (2018/0081911) and in further view of Smith (20130090961).
As per claim 1, Wakabayashi shows the use of a method performed at least in part by a telemetry registration controller (paragraphs 59-63 and 72-75), the method comprising:
receiving, from a telemetry producer, a telemetry producer protocol suite (e.g. paragraphs 6-9, 90, 94-101, 174, figure 7);
assigning a telemetry producer identifier (ID) to the telemetry producer (e.g. paragraph 177);
receiving, from a telemetry consumer, a consumer request packet, the consumer request packet comprising a telemetry consumer protocol suite (e.g. paragraphs 129, 229 and 230);
transmitting, to the telemetry consumer, information comprising the telemetry producer ID and indicating the telemetry consumer can subscribe to telemetry data from a telemetry message broker that has been published by the telemetry producer (e.g. paragraph 178 and figure 7).
Wakabayashi does not show the use of determining whether the telemetry producer protocol suite is compatible with the telemetry consumer protocol suite; and in response to determining that the telemetry producer protocol suite is compatible with the telemetry consumer protocol suite, however Mowatt does show the use of determining whether the telemetry producer protocol suite is compatible with the telemetry consumer protocol suite; and in response to determining that the telemetry producer protocol suite is compatible with the telemetry consumer protocol suite (e.g. paragraphs 37, 58, 70 and 72).
It would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi to include devices’ compatibility determination feature as disclosed by Mowatt because it would help to share data between applications based on their data receiving and producing capabilities.
Wakabayashi does not show, but Smith does show the use of the telemetry producer protocol suite includes at least a number of keys that can be collected, a list of available hashing mechanisms the telemetry producer is compatible with, a list of types of collection protocol the telemetry producer is able to support, a list of available serialization formats the telemetry producer is able to support, or a list of available sensor paths (e.g., claim 11).
It would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi to include various security features in publish-subscribe system as disclosed by Smith because it would provide for improved access to valid data in real time.
As per claim 2, Wakabayashi shows the use of wherein the telemetry consumer is a first telemetry consumer with a first telemetry consumer protocol suite and further comprising:
receiving, from a second telemetry consumer, a second consumer request packet, the second consumer request packet comprising a second telemetry consumer protocol suite, and wherein the second telemetry consumer protocol suite is different than the first protocol consumer suite (e.g. paragraphs 24, 129 and 133-137);
determining that the telemetry producer protocol suite supports both the first telemetry consumer protocol suite and the second telemetry consumer protocol suite (e.g. paragraphs 24, 73, 90 and 123) ; and
transmitting, to the first telemetry consumer and the second telemetry consumer, information comprising the telemetry producer ID and indicating the first telemetry consumer and the second telemetry consumer can subscribe to the telemetry data from a telemetry message broker that has been published by the telemetry producer (e.g. paragraph 24 and 178).
Although Wakabayashi shows supporting multiple protocols and meta data of the producer, consumer and broker, Wakabayashi does not show compatibility between the producer and consumer, Mowatt shows the use of determining whether the telemetry producer protocol suite is compatible with the telemetry consumer protocol suite.
It would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi to include devices’ compatibility determination feature as disclosed by Mowatt because it would help to share data between applications based on their data receiving and producing capabilities.
As per claim 3, Wakabayashi shows the use of wherein the telemetry registration controller is capable of registering multiple telemetry producers and multiple telemetry consumers concurrently (e.g. paragraphs 23, 24, 215-218).
As per claim 7, Wakabayashi shows the use of wherein the telemetry registration controller communicates with the telemetry producer and the telemetry consumer via a multi-protocol registration interface (e.g. paragraphs 72-75).
As per claim 8, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. In addition, Wakabayashi shows the use of a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (e.g. figure 10).
As per claim 9, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7.
As per claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. In addition, Wakabayashi shows the use of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations (e.g. figure 10).
As per claim 16, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 17, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (20240007544) in view of Mowatt (2018/0081911) and in further view of Smith (20130090961) and in further view of Metz (2021/0334132).
As per claim 4, Wakabayashi does show the use of wherein the telemetry registration controller is a centralized controller with a scale-out architecture, however Metz shows the use of wherein the telemetry registration controller is a centralized controller with a scale-out architecture (paragraphs 65, 86 and 89).
It would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi and Mowatt to include centralized distribution module between publishers and subscribers as disclosed by Metz, because it would allow for centralized data transfer between systems and eliminates unnecessary custom script writing to transfer data between publishers and subscribers.
As per claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 18, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (20240007544) in view of Mowatt (2018/0081911) and in further view of Smith (20130090961) and in further view of “Official Notice”.
As per claim 5, Wakabayashi shows the use of storing the telemetry producer protocol suite and the assigned telemetry producer ID in a telemetry registration database (e.g. paragraphs 90 and 109);
in response to receiving the telemetry consumer protocol suite, distributing the data to one or more telemetry producer ID’s that correspond with one or more telemetry producer protocol suites (e.g. paragraphs 133-140 and 152); and
transmitting, to the telemetry consumer, the one or more telemetry producer ID’s (e.g. paragraphs 24 and 178).
Wakabayashi does not specifically show the use of that are compatible with the telemetry consumer protocol suite and querying the telemetry registration database. Although Wakabayashi shows supporting multiple protocols and meta data of the producer, consumer and broker, Wakabayashi does not show compatibility between the producer and consumer, Mowatt shows the use of determining whether the telemetry producer protocol suite is compatible with the telemetry consumer protocol suite.
It would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi to include devices’ compatibility determination feature as disclosed by Mowatt because it would help to share data between applications based on their data receiving and producing capabilities.
“Official Notice” is taken that querying a database is well known and expected in the art. It would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi with querying a database because it would allow the broker to look up which subscribers are supposed to receive the produced data (via the data distribution function of the broker).
As per claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (WO 2022/0122789) in view of Mowatt (2018/0081911) and in further view of Smith (20130090961) and in further view of Guigli (10009443).
As per claim 6, Wakabayashi, Mowatt and Smith do not show, but Guigli does show the telemetry producer suite further comprises: a list of types of operating systems the telemetry producer can support; or a list of device vendors the telemetry producer is compatible with (e.g., figure 47). It would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi with the teachings of Guigli because it would provide for concurrent access to multiple types of tenants without the complexity and limitations of network address translation.
As per claim 13, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
As per claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Follansbee whose telephone number is (571)272-3964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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.
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 (INUSA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights