CTNF 18/679,128 CTNF 83770 DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to the above identified application filed 05/30/2024. The application contains claims 1-20, all examined and rejected. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 9-13, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejaie et al. (US 20230161769 A1) in view of Gupta et al. "Sonata: Query-Driven Network Telemetry"; arXiv:1705.01049v1 [cs.NI] 2 May 2017 . Regarding claim 1, Rejaie discloses: an apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing computer executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and, individually or in combination , at least by (paragraph [0061]) configured to: receive a selection of data elements available from one or more codelets operating within a network function or an operating system of one or more nodes of a communications network, each data element associated with a schema defining output from a respective codelet, at least by (paragraph [0140-0142] “The aggregates field specifies both which slices of traffic the query should apply to…and how traffic should be grouped in these slices… features field specified how the probe should process packets… report field specifies how aggregation results should be reported to the collector” which teaches the network operator select data elements form programable switch data plane probes using an explicit three field data schema (aggregates field, features field, and report field) defining the output format of each network monitoring probe (e.g. a schema defining output from a respective codelet) receive a selection of operations to perform an algorithm on one or more of the selected data elements, at least by (paragraph [0062] “submit telemetry queries… scheduler 204 translates queries 210 into their primitive operations and constructs schedules 212 for how these operations should be run on switch hardware 202 ” the primitive operations and how the operations should run is equivalent to perform an algorithm) generate a streaming query that represents the algorithm for performing the operations on respective streams of the selected data elements , at least by (paragraph [0062] “scheduler 204 translates queries 210 into their primitive operations and constructs schedules 212 for how these operations should be run on switch hardware 202 . These schedules 212 are handed to a runtime component 206 which generates primitive sub-epoch operations 214 and communicates these to switch hardware 202 to execute the primitive operations” the sub-epoch query schedule represents the comped algorithm operating on continuous network data streams) select a location for performing the streaming query based on bandwidth and latency constraints, at least by (paragraph [0076-0077] describes selecting execution allocation/placement based on bandwidth and latency tradeoffs, “tradeoff result latency for reduced resource requirements by executing a query's operations across several epochs”, and paragraph [0082-0085] describes the scheduler minimizes the “maximum volume of data that needs to be returned from the switch in a single sub-epoch to address bandwidth constraints” to address allocation bandwidth constraints) and output code in a programing language corresponding to an architecture of the selected location to perform the streaming query, at least by (paragraph [0012]/claim 1, “every sub-epoch, reprogramming a programmable dataplane device” paragraph [0062] “generates primitive sub-epoch operations 214 and communicates these to switch hardware 202 to execute the primitive operations 214 .” Such reprogramming/operations inherently is associated with output code in a programing language corresponding to an architecture of the selected location to perform) As shown above, Rejaie fails to specifically recite: “perform an algorithm” and “output code in a programing language” However, Gupta teaches the above limitation: perform an algorithm, at least by (Sec. 1. Introduction, “query interface with a familiar programming paradigm using dataflow operators over the raw packet stream”, programming paradigm using dataflow operators over the raw packet stream = perform an algorithm, see also, Sec. 3.2, “Most of these tasks can be expressed as declarative queries composing dataflow operators like map, reduce, and join over a stream of packet tuples”, which further describes the dataflow operators, selected and composed into an analytic algorithm) Also, Gupta teaches the above limitation: output code in a programing language, at least by (Sec. 1. Introduction, “compiles the query to functions that operate on the switches…that can be programmed via a domain-specific language like P4”) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Rejaie with Gupta which provides operator selection interface and target language code generation, enabling support for a wide range of network telemetry tasks with less state in the network, and lower data rates to streaming analytics systems ( Gupta , Abstract). As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Rejaie further describes: wherein the selection of data elements comprises data elements from a plurality of nodes of the communications network , at least by (paragraph [0062] describes telemetry queries are applied across distributed network infrastructure nodes, with features gathered from switch data plane nodes distributed throughout the communication network) As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Rejaie further describes: wherein the algorithm on the one or more of the selected data elements includes an aggregation or a transformation of the selection of data elements , at least by (paragraph [0074] “Sonata operators, in particular, a filter operator followed by a reduce operator”) As per claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated and Rejaie fails to describe: wherein the aggregation or the transformation includes one or more of: tail statistics of a distribution of a data element during a window, percentile of a data element during a window, or an average of the data element during a window. However, Gupta teaches the above limitation(s) at least by (Sec. 2.1, “as well as the start and end time of the flow. This type of information is often gathered in a “sampled” fashion: on average, one out of every n packets is tabulated in an IPFIX flow record; typical sampling rates for an ISP backbone network can be in the 1,000 < n < 10,000 range”, Sec. 6.1, “percentile of the respective counts; window interval as one second; and sketch accuracy as 99%.) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Rejaie with Gupta which provides operator selection interface and target language code generation, enabling support for a wide range of network telemetry tasks with less state in the network, and lower data rates to streaming analytics systems (Gupta, Abstract). As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Rejaie further describes: wherein the location for performing the streaming query is selected from a plurality of datacenters wherein at least two of the datacenters have different architectures, at least by (paragraph [0145-0150] describes the different execution targets with distinct architectures, “ Semi-programmable hardware switching ASIC… Fully-programmable hardware switching ASIC… FPGA… Programmable NIC… Software switch…) Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 recite equivalent claim limitations as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method; Claims 17, 18, 19 and 20 recite equivalent claim limitations as claims 1, 2, 3 and 5 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable medium, as such they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejaie and Gupta in view of Malladi et al. (US 20170060574 A1) . As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Rejaie and Gupta fails to describe: wherein the output code is configured to provide results of the streaming query to a machine-learning model in a processing pipeline. However, Malladi et al. (US 20170060574 A1) teaches the above limitation(s) at least by (paragraph [0063, 0201-0205] which describes an analytic pipeline with a publishing function ( output code ) that produces outputs configured to feed into machine learning model.) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Rejaie and Gupta with Malladi which provides improved edge analytics used to immediately to prevent costly machine failures or downtime as well as improve the efficiency ( Malladi , 0005). Claim 14 recite equivalent claim limitations as claim 6 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method, as such they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejaie and Gupta in view of Hasabnis et al. (US 20240143296 A1) . As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Rejaie fails to describe: wherein to output code in the programing language corresponding to the architecture of the selected location However Gupta discloses the above limitation, at least by (Sec. 1. Introduction, “compiles the query to functions that operate on the switches…that can be programmed via a domain-specific language like P4”) the one or more processors are configured to generate a prompt to a large language model to generate the code to perform the streaming query in the programming language. However, Hasabnis discloses the above limitation, at least by (paragraph [0103 “input source code by a code large language model (LLM), generate one or more code representations of the input source code, analyze the one or more code representations of the input source code, and compile the one or more code representations of the input source code into one or more computer executable instruction” Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Rejaie with Gupta and Hasabnis which provides operator selection interface and target language code generation, enabling support for a wide range of network telemetry tasks with less state in the network, and lower data rates to streaming analytics systems ( Gupta, Abstract ) and enable code LLMs to solve complex programming problems and improve overall programming efficiency ( Hasabnis, para. 0025). Claim 16 recite equivalent claim limitations as claim 8 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method, as such they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7 and 17 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. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Metz et al. (US 20140280338 A1): Abstract, paragraph [0015, 0018, 0088]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3157. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PT. 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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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. /DENNIS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164 06/10/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/679,128 Page 2 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/679,128 Page 3 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/679,128 Page 4 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/679,128 Page 5 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/679,128 Page 6 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/679,128 Page 7 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/679,128 Page 8 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/679,128 Page 9 Art Unit: 2164
Prosecution Insights