Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present applicati7410on 18/631,917, filed on 4/10/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a CON of 16/144,313 filed on 09/27/2018 is now US PAT 11985023
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment filed on 6/18/2026
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 4/10/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Double Patenting
In view of terminal disclaimer approved on 6/18/2026, the rejection under Double Patenting as set forth in the previous office action is hereby withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 with respect to claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for examiner’s response, see discussion below:
a)At page 10-13, claim 1, applicant argues:
Amended claim 1 reflects a technical solution to a technical problem associated with manually mapping a service model to a device configuration model and/or reflects a technical solution to a technical problem associated with using different translators when services or created, updated, and deleted from the service model that may impact properties across network device configurations by at least "generating a graph-based model," "storing, based on the configuration data mode, data representing one or more properties of the one of the network devices corresponding to each of the one or more first nodes of the graph-based model," and "generating a response," as recited in amended claim 1, which reflects an improvement to the technological field of monitoring computing systems, as indicated in the Background and throughout the description. Thus, amended claim 1 as a whole integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the alleged judicial
exception.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner submits that the pending claims (as amended 6/18/2026) should pass the test set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), as updated October 2019, referred to herein as the PEG 2019. Applicant will focus on Prong Two of Step 2A, in evaluating the pending claims using this section of the test set forth in the PEG 2019
As explained in the 2019 PEG, the evaluation of Prong Two of Step 2A requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” These considerations are set forth in the 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). Note, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. If the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is eligible at Step 2A.
For example, if the additional limitations as amended 6/18/2026 (determining one or more data structures……….. constructing, based on the one or more data structure………… plurality of nodes has at least one property……… receiving a query………… identifying, based on the one or more first nodes……. providing the response to the query) do not provide “improvement to another technology or technical field”, for example , determining one or more data structures, merely manipulating data structure, encompasses mental observations or evaluations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations mental process user/actor that constitute certain methods of organizing and/or manipulating data structure activity but for the recitation of generic computer component(s) and/or general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea. As discussed, the claims as amended (6/18/2026) the broadest reasonable interpretation of above steps is that those steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Taking the claim 1, as amended 6/18/2026) elements separately, the functions performed in claim 1 by the generically recited plurality of nodes including one or more first nodes, each of the one or more first nodes corresponds to one of the plurality of network devices……….identifying, based on the one or more first nodes of the graph-based model indicating one or more properties of a network device from the plurality of network devices matches the at least one query property for the requested one or more devices, the network device……….providing the response to the query…………well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See e.g., Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838F.3d 1307,1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining that receiving, processing, and sending data are well-known, generic computer-implemented steps). For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the data nodes, broadcasting, neighboring nodes etc., amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 US at 225-26; see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,1378 (Fed.Cir.2017) (sequence of receiving, analyzing, modifying, generating, displaying, and transmitting data recited an abstraction)
Examiner applies above arguments to claim 2-8,10-16,18-20 depend from claims 1,9,17 as such, the pending claims fail Prong Two of Step 2A-2B of the PEG 2019. Therefore, examiner maintains rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
b)At page 17-18, claim 1, applicant argues:
The cited references do not disclose or suggest “determining one or more data structures of a configuration data model for a plurality of network devices managed by a network management system, the one or more data structures including list data structures associated with the plurality of network devices, leaf list data structures associated with at least one of the plurality of network devices, container data structures associated with the plurality of network devices, container with presence data structures associated with the plurality of network devices, or any combinations thereof……..Bedi does not disclose “plurality of network devices”………………in addition, the cited references of Bedi in view of Salam are silent on constructing edges of the graph-based model……….
Examiner’s response:
As best understood by the examiner, the prior art of Bedi is directed to graph based query language particularly defining data models, and respective properties of the data elements in the graph database model (Bedi: Abstract, fig 1,0017,0020-0021). The prior art of Bedi teaches defining data structure defining entities and relationships particularly graph may include nodes or vertices and edges or relationships and their respective properties (Fig 1, 0019). It is further noted that the prior art of Bedi supports other devices particularly IoT devices (fig 1, 0019connected in a network environment.(fig 14, 0040)
The prior art of Salam is directed to mapping network data model particularly data models at a network device(s) computing the semantic relationships and/or semantic matching for use in the network (Salam: Abstract) and Salam’s fig 1 teaches nor only network data model, but also network including multiple network devices (fig 1, 0018-0019)
PNG
media_image1.png
175
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is however, noted that Bedi, Salam do not teach “constructing, based on the configuration data model, a plurality of edges between the plurality of nodes in the graph-based model, wherein an edge of the plurality of edges includes a containment edge that indicates a first node of the plurality of nodes has at least one property of a second node of the plurality of nodes or a reference edge that indicates the first node has a reference property to the second node”, although Bedi teaches multiple nodes in the graph database including data structure supporting nodes and edges and their relationship) ;
PNG
media_image2.png
264
108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Karacali disclosed “constructing, based on the configuration data model, a plurality of edges between the plurality of nodes in the graph-based model, wherein an edge of the plurality of edges includes a containment edge that indicates a first node of the plurality of nodes has at least one property of a second node of the plurality of nodes or a reference edge that indicates the first node has a reference property to the second node” (Karacali: Abstract, 0027, fig 1A, 0087-0090, fig 3A-3C, 0099-0103, fig 5-6– Karacali teaches network as graph having edges and vertices associated with endpoint devices particularly network devices, linking the network devices for which performance being monitored from collected end-to-end path measurement data. The prior art of Karacali teaches reference to attachment of endpoints to network devices particularly identifying multiple nodes (for example first node, second node and like) shown as matrix defining the path and respective links as sown in fig 3A. The prior art of Karacali teaches defining the forest structure F is a set of tree T where pair of nodes (leaf nodes) representing not only properties of leaf nodes, not also vertices of respective leaf nodes in the tree structure measuring performance of the overall data model (using optimum algorithms)
PNG
media_image3.png
266
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
146
269
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
164
341
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
262
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention analysis of network performance of each endpoint network devices of Karacali into graph data model connecting data generated from various application including IoT devices and data elements stored in the graph database of Bedi et al., because Bedi, Salam and Karacali teaches generating graph model data structure (Bedi: Abstract, fig 1-2; Salam: 0015 and Karacali: Abstract), while Salam, Karacali teaches defining semantic data structure operates on tree or graph like structure identifying nodes semantically related (Salam: 0030, fig 1; Karacali: fig 4-6). Because both Bedi, Salam and Karacali teaches network data model, supporting graph data model, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to use network data model supporting network devices, particularly respective end point network devices for use in performance analysis of overall network, while vertices may corresponds to routers or other network switching element of the network and edges correspond to IP layer connectivity between network device elements and updating the vertices of the graph associated with one or more respective endpoint network devices based on the computed vertex scores (Karacali: 0007-0009), thereby improves overall quality and reliability of the automatic performance of the network devices and directed between pairs of the endpoint devices (Karacali: 0008-0009)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,9,17, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1,9,17, A method comprising:
generating a graph-based model, comprising:
determining one or more data structures of a configuration data model for a plurality of network devices managed by a network management system, the one or more data structures including list data structures associated with the plurality of network devices, leaf list data structures associated with at least one of the plurality of network devices, container data structures associated with the plurality of network devices, container with presence data structures associated with the plurality of network devices, or any combinations thereof;
constructing, based on the one or more data structure of the configuration data model for the plurality of network devices, a plurality of nodes of the graph-based model, the plurality of nodes including one or more first nodes, each of the one or more first nodes corresponds to one of the plurality of network devices for the configuration data model the plurality of nodes further including one or more second nodes, each of the second nodes corresponding to one of the one or more data structures of the configuration data model; and
constructing, based on the configuration data model, a plurality of edges between the plurality of nodes in the graph-based model, wherein an edge of the plurality of edges includes a containment edge that indicates a first node of the plurality of nodes has at least one property of a second node of the plurality of nodes or a reference edge that indicates the first node has a reference property to the second node;
storing, based on the configuration data model, data representing one or more properties of the one of the network devices corresponding to each of the one or more first nodes of the graph-based model
receiving a query including data representing at least one query property for requested one or more devices; and
generating a response, wherein generating the response includes:
identifying, based on the one or more first nodes of the graph-based model indicating one or more properties of a network device from the plurality of network devices matches the at least one query property for the requested one or more devices, the network device, and
providing the response to the query to include data identifying at least the network device as the requested one or more devices”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of generating, constructing, graph based model, configuration data model may appears data structure
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of different data types, configuration of data model including property matching to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para: 0028-0030,0047-0051, fig 2, 0127-0128, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para: 0028-0030,0047-0051, fig 2, 0127-0128 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,10, further elaborates “wherein the configuration data model is expressed in Yet Another Next Generation (YANG) data modeling language, and wherein the configuration data model comprises one of a low-level device configuration model, a service model, or an inventory model”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 3,11,18, further elaborates “further comprising generating a graph-based schema from the configuration data model”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 4,12,19, further elaborates “wherein the query comprises data representing data model paths and at least one condition corresponding to the at least one query property”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 5,13,20, further elaborates “further comprising generating a document database schema from the configuration data model”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 6,14, further elaborates “wherein generating the document database schema comprises:
modeling a list with an entity extension of the configuration data model as a document of the document database schema; and
setting properties of the document according to corresponding properties from the configuration data model”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 7,15, further elaborates “wherein generating the document database schema comprises:
generating a parent vertex document corresponding to a parent vertex of the graph-based model having a child vertex of the graph-based model, wherein generating the parent vertex document comprises generating the parent vertex document to have a child property including an identifier for a child vertex document corresponding to the child vertex; and
generating the child vertex document corresponding to the child vertex, wherein generating the child vertex document comprises generating the child vertex document to have a parent property including an identifier for the parent vertex document”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 8,16, further elaborates “wherein identifying the network device comprises using the document database schema to support one or more of sorting, searching, or filtering the graph-based model to determine a node from the one or more first nodes corresponding to the network device has the one or more properties matching the at least one query property”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedi et al., (hereafter Bedi), US Pub. No. 2018/0210966 filed Jan, 2017 Salam et al., (hereafter Salam), US Pub. No. 2018/0013662 filed Jul, 2016 in view of Karacali-Akyamac et al., (hereafter Karacali), US Pub. No. 2008/0025223 published Jan, 2008
As to Claim 1,9,17, A method comprising: (Abstract)
“generating a graph-based model, comprising:” (Bedi: Abstract, 0017, fig 1 – Bedi teaches graph database model);
PNG
media_image7.png
188
183
media_image7.png
Greyscale
“determining one or more data structures of a configuration data model, managed by a network management system, the one or more data structures including list data structures associated, leaf list data structures, container with presence data structures associated with the plurality devices (Bedi: Abstract, 0017,0020-0021 – Bedi teaches graph based database defining data structure(s) associated with respective data model representing the data element as well as resource description including query expressed in data elements and properties of respective elements particularly graph based model configuration of triples (property-scoped) indices element 160A-160N. The prior art of Bedi teaches graph model data structure including nodes of IoT devices (fig 1, 0019), as such using various network devices coupled via network as detailed in fig 14, 0040
“constructing based on the one or more data structure of the configuration data model for the plurality of devices (Bedi: Abstract, fig 1, fig 14)
a plurality of nodes of the graph-based model, the plurality of nodes including one or more first nodes” (Bedi: fig 1, 0017, 0019 – Bedi teaches graph database model defining graph nodes including relationship between vertices, particularly graph database nodes and edges connect[ing] items as detailed in 0019)
each of the one or more first nodes corresponds to one of the plurality of network devices for the configuration data model the plurality of nodes further including one or more second nodes, each of the second nodes corresponding to one of the one or more data structures of the configuration data model (Bedi: fig 1, fig 14, 0019 – Bedi teaches generating graph based model supporting network connected IoT devices particularly defining entities, relationship among devices, furthermore, graph data structure supports multiple nodes arranged in a tree structure)
PNG
media_image8.png
235
102
media_image8.png
Greyscale
storing, based on the configuration data model, data representing one or more properties of the one of the devices corresponding to each of the one or more first nodes of the graph-based model” (Bedi: fig 1, fig 6, element 610, fig 13, element 1320 – Bedi teaches storing data in a graph database using data model and also known as triple store as shown in fig 1);
PNG
media_image9.png
38
173
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
48
170
media_image10.png
Greyscale
“receiving a query including data representing at least one query property for requested one or more devices” (Bedi: fig 1, 0024,0027-0033,0041, fig 2A, fig 12, element 1205 – Bedi teaches perform queries of the graph database particularly defining the query properties); and
queries of the graph database particularly defining the query properties) ; and
PNG
media_image11.png
233
165
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
125
135
media_image12.png
Greyscale
“generating a response, wherein generating the response includes” (Bedi: Abstract, 0017, 0048, fig 1 – Bedi teaches graph database model that including updating the graph response to the respective model query);
“identifying, based on the one or more first nodes of the graph-based model indicating one or more properties of devices (Bedi: fig 1, 0024,0027-0033,0041, fig 2A, fig 12, element 1205 – Bedi teaches perform queries of the graph database particularly defining the query properties), “devices matches the at least one query property for the requested one or more devices” (Bedi: 0045,0065-0066, fig 12, element 1205, 0082 – Bedi teaches graph database supports queries that perform search on property values and query results element 1205 retrieved from the triple table, mapped to the property graph data model as detailed in fig 12)
“providing the response to the query to include data identifying at least the device as the requested one or more devices” (Bedi: 0066-0067).
It is however, noted that Bedi does not specifically disclose “plurality of network devices”, although Bedi suggests graph database model supports Network IoT devices (Bedi: fig 1, 0019). On the other hand, Salam disclosed “plurality of network devices” (Salam: Abstract, fig 1,0019-0020 – Salam teaches network model supporting plurality of network devices and/or components as detailed in fig 1, element 10)
PNG
media_image1.png
175
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention network data models at a network devices operating in a network of Salam et al., into graph data model connecting data generated from various application including IoT devices and data elements stored in the graph database of Bedi et al., because both Bedi, Salam teaches generating graph model data structure (Bedi: Abstract, fig 1-2), while Salam teaches defining semantic data structure operates on tree or graph like structure identifying nodes semantically related (Salam: 0030, fig 1). Because both Bedi, Salam teaches data model, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to use network data model supporting network devices particularly dynamically, semantically mapping and matching between different data models (Salam: 0017) thereby improving the ability to build knowledge systems from domain specific ontologies, and identifying, matching semantic similarities across various data models in a networking environment (Salam: 0029), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system
It is however, noted that Bedi, Salam do not teach “constructing, based on the configuration data model, a plurality of edges between the plurality of nodes in the graph-based model, wherein an edge of the plurality of edges includes a containment edge that indicates a first node of the plurality of nodes has at least one property of a second node of the plurality of nodes or a reference edge that indicates the first node has a reference property to the second node”, although Bedi teaches multiple nodes in the graph database including data structure supporting nodes and edges and their relationship) ;
PNG
media_image2.png
264
108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, Karacali disclosed “constructing, based on the configuration data model, a plurality of edges between the plurality of nodes in the graph-based model, wherein an edge of the plurality of edges includes a containment edge that indicates a first node of the plurality of nodes has at least one property of a second node of the plurality of nodes or a reference edge that indicates the first node has a reference property to the second node” (Karacali: Abstract, 0027, fig 1A, 0087-0090, fig 3A-3C, 0099-0103, fig 5-6– Karacali teaches network as graph having edges and vertices associated with endpoint devices particularly network devices, linking the network devices for which performance being monitored from collected end-to-end path measurement data. The prior art of Karacali teaches reference to attachment of endpoints to network devices particularly identifying multiple nodes (for example first node, second node and like) shown as matrix defining the path and respective links as sown in fig 3A. The prior art of Karacali teaches defining the forest structure F is a set of tree T where pair of nodes (leaf nodes) representing not only properties of leaf nodes, not also vertices of respective leaf nodes in the tree structure measuring performance of the overall data model (using optimum algorithms)
PNG
media_image3.png
266
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
146
269
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
164
341
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
262
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention analysis of network performance of each endpoint network devices of Karacali into graph data model connecting data generated from various application including IoT devices and data elements stored in the graph database of Bedi et al., because Bedi, Salam and Karacali teaches generating graph model data structure (Bedi: Abstract, fig 1-2; Salam: 0015 and Karacali: Abstract), while Salam, Karacali teaches defining semantic data structure operates on tree or graph like structure identifying nodes semantically related (Salam: 0030, fig 1; Karacali: fig 4-6). Because both Bedi, Salam and Karacali teaches network data model, supporting graph data model, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to use network data model supporting network devices, particularly respective end point network devices for use in performance analysis of overall network, while vertices may corresponds to routers or other network switching element of the network and edges correspond to IP layer connectivity between network device elements and updating the vertices of the graph associated with one or more respective endpoint network devices based on the computed vertex scores (Karacali: 0007-0009), thereby improves overall quality and reliability of the automatic performance of the network devices and directed between pairs of the endpoint devices (Karacali: 0008-0009)
As to Claim 2,10 the combination of Bedi, Salam, Karacali disclosed “ wherein the configuration data model is expressed in Yet Another Next Generation (YANG) data modeling language, and wherein the configuration data model comprises one of a low-level device configuration model, a service model, or an inventory model” (Salam: fig 1, 0016,0020,0037 – Salam teaches Yet Another Next Generation (YANG) data modeling language)
As to Claim 3,11,18 the combination of Bedi, Salam, Karacali disclosed “further comprising generating a graph-based schema from the configuration data model.” (Bedi: Abstract, 0017-0018, 0073, fig 9)
PNG
media_image13.png
318
179
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 4,12,19 the combination of Bedi, Salam, Karacali disclosed “wherein the query comprises data representing data model paths and at least one condition corresponding to the at least one query property” (Bedi: Bedi: fig 7, fig 10, 0059, 0076).
PNG
media_image14.png
156
100
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
105
110
media_image15.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 5,13,20, the combination of Bedi, Salam, Karacali disclosed “further comprising generating a document database schema from the configuration data model” (Bedi: 0073 – Bedi teaches documents representing graph into the graph database and performing query of such graph may include data model operations).
As to Claim 6,14 the combination of Bedi, Salam, Karacali disclosed “wherein generating the document database schema comprises: modeling a list with an entity extension of the configuration data model as a document of the document database schema; and setting properties of the document according to corresponding properties from the configuration data model” (Bedi: 0071-0074).
Claim 7,15 the combination of Bedi, Salam, Karacali disclosed
“generating a parent vertex document corresponding to a parent vertex of the graph-based model having a child vertex of the graph-based model, wherein generating the parent vertex document comprises generating the parent vertex document to have a child property including an identifier for a child vertex document corresponding to the child vertex” (Bedi: fig 1, fig 6, 0019,0049-0050,0073); and
“generating the child vertex document corresponding to the child vertex, wherein generating the child vertex document comprises generating the child vertex document to have a parent property including an identifier for the parent vertex document” (Bedi: fig 1, 0019,0054-0056,0059).
As to Claim 8,16, the combination of Bedi, Salam disclosed
“wherein identifying the device comprising using the document database schema to support one or more of sorting, searching or filtering the graph-based model to determine a node from the one or more first nodes corresponding to the device has the one or more properties matching the at least one query property” (Bedi: fig 7, fig 10, 0045, ,0065-0066, 0067-0070, 0076-0077,fig 12, element 1205, 0082).
On the other hand, Salam disclosed “identifying the network device” (Salam: Abstract, fig 1,0019-0020 – Salam teaches network model supporting plurality of network devices and/or components as detailed in fig 1, element 10)
PNG
media_image1.png
175
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2018/0210966
b. US Pub. No. 2018/0013662
c. US Pub. No. 2008/0025223
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights