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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 1-2, 6-12 and 16-19) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Examiner finds applicant’s argument pervasive.
Upon further consideration, Examiner finds that both sets claims are directed to evaluating event records for updating a unified network topology and can be found in:
G06F16/2308 Database structures > of structured data >Updating > Concurrency control.
While each set of claims requires different search strategies and search queries, the common classification prevents the establishment of a serious examination and search burden. For these reason, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“detecting a conflict between the event record and a second event record, wherein the first event record is associated with a parent resource and the second event record is associated with a child resource; and updating the representation of the unified network topology based only on the event record.
determining that a second event record relates to a child resource; and maintaining the representation of the unified network topology without the second event record in response to determining that the second event record relates to the child resource.
receiving an event record from the first data source indicating the change, the first data source associated with a first credibility score; receiving a second event record from a second data source indicating the change, the second data source associated with a second credibility score; generating a combined credibility score based on the first credibility score and the second credibility score; and updating the representation of the unified network topology based on the change in response to determining that the combined credibility score exceeds a predetermined threshold
maintaining the representation of the unified network topology in response to determining that the combined credibility score does not exceed the predetermined threshold”.
must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 15 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 15 recite:
detecting a conflict between the event record and a second event record, wherein the first event record is associated with a parent resource and the second event record is associated with a child resource; and updating the representation of the unified network topology based only on the event record.
There are a plurality of instances of “event record” recited. Claim 5 fails to clearly delineate which “event record” is being reference with the phrase “the event record”.
Claims 5 and 15 are rendered indefinite.
It appears “the event record” is referencing the “first event record”. Examiner suggests applicant amend the claim language to replace all references to “the event record” to “the first event record”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1, 3 and 5 of Patent 12,508,809 disclose the recited limitations of the present application.
Present Application
Patent 12,580,809
Claim 1
A method for updating a unified network topology for a computing environment, comprising:
generating a representation of a unified network topology for a network topology of a computing environment, the representation based on a unified data schema, wherein the unified data schema is mapped to a plurality of data schemas, each data schema corresponding to a unique data source;
receiving an event record from a first data source;
extracting data from the event record, the extracted data indicating a change in the network topology; and
updating the representation of the unified network topology based on the extracted data from the event record.
Claim 1
A method for evicting a resource from a unified network topology of a computing environment, comprising:
generating a representation of a unified network topology for a network topology of a computing environment, the representation based on a unified data schema, wherein the unified data schema is mapped to a plurality of data schemas, each data schema corresponding to a unique data source;
receiving an event record at a first time,
(a record is inherently from a data source)
Claim 2:
extracting from each event record of the plurality of event records network topology information
Claim 4:
removing the representation further in response to determining that the representation is generated based on the second event record.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under similar rationale in view of .
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 in view of Avery et al. U.S. Patent publication 10,747,569.
Claims 2 and 12,
Although U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 discloses substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to disclose
parsing the event record to extract the data, wherein parsing the event record is based on a data schema of the plurality of data schemas which is associated with the first data source.
In an analogous art, Avery discloses
parsing the event record to extract the data, wherein parsing the event record is based on a data schema of the plurality of data schemas which is associated with the first data source. (Col 26, line 49-53-The parsing module 212 may receive application data from the input module 204 and parse the application data into object data and/or relationship data. Object entries may be created for each application instance, and entities of the enterprise network which make up the application instance.))
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to applying the parsing of Avery with the system of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 to produce the predictable result of parsing events based on one of the topology structures of a global topology.
Claim 3 and 13,
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the event record relates to a parent resource; updating the representation of the unified network topology in response to determining that the event record relates to the parent resource. (Col 9, line 54-60- The coexisting topologies discovery system may create or update a relationship entry based on the relationship data. A newly created or newly updated relationship entry may be updated to a relationship table. Each relationship entry include attributes or properties of the relationship. Col 10, Table 1- discloses the relationship determine is virtual machine managed by a switch)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to applying the data extraction of Avery with the system of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 to produce the predictable result of parsing events based on one of the topology structures of a global topology.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 in view of Nogueira dos Santos et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2016/0210310.
Claims 6 and 16,
Although U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 discloses substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to disclose
determining for each unique data source a credibility score.
In an analogous art, Nogueira dos Santos discloses
determining for each unique data source a credibility score (para 0035- disclose assigning a score to event or fact based on the reliability and reputations of each data source.)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to applying confidence evaluation of Nogueira dos Santos with the system of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 to produce the predictable result of determine credibility rankings of the data sources and records of the combined topology.
Claims 7 and 17,
The method of claim 6, further comprising: updating the representation of the unified network topology based on the extracted data from the event record only in response to determining that the first data source has a credibility score exceeding a predetermined value.( Nogueira dos Santos para 0035-discloses unstructured data source function 122 has a minimum score that, if failed to be met, results in unstructured data source function 122 refraining from adding the corresponding event or fact to database 106. )
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to applying reliability filtering of data events of Nogueira dos Santos with the system of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 to produce the predictable result of filtering network events that fail to satisfy a minimum credibility score.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809 in view of Nogueira dos Santos et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2016/0210310 in view of Choi et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2021/0279824.
Claims 8 and 18,
updating the representation of the unified network topology based on the change in response to determining that a credibility score exceeds a predetermined threshold. (Nogueira dos Santos para 0035-discloses filtering data event based on a minimum credibility score. Only data events that exceed the minimum are added to the database)
Although Avery/Nogueira dos Santos discloses substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to disclose
receiving an event record from the first data source indicating the change, the first data source associated with a first credibility score; receiving a second event record from a second data source indicating the change, the second data source associated with a second credibility score; generating a combined credibility score based on the first credibility score and the second credibility score
In an analogous art, Choi discloses
[generating a blended confidence score for a common record from different data sources] (para 0059-Multiple layers 604 of the linking model correlate different data sources according to different levels of confidence in matches. Scores 606 for each level can be combined into a final score 608 that provides a level of confidence regarding when records in different data sources are referring to the same property, allowing the creation of UPID 214 in FIG. 2. Scoring by the linking model 604 might employ techniques such as, e.g., string normalization and string similarity.)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to applying the blending confidence score of Choi with the system of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,809/Nogueira dos Santos to produce the predictable result of creating a weighted score for a change from a plurality of data sources. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using a plurality of data sources to determine credibility scores reduces the risk of an erroneous rating.
Claims 9 and 19,
The method of claim 8, further comprising: maintaining the representation of the unified network topology in response to determining that the combined credibility score does not exceed the predetermined threshold. (Nogueira dos Santos para 0035)
Same motivation as claims 7 and 8.
Claims 1-2 and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 9-11 of copending Application No. 19/550,093. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 19/550,093 disclose the claimed limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Present Application
Application 19/550,093
Claim 1
A method for updating a unified network topology for a computing environment, comprising:
generating a representation of a unified network topology for a network topology of a computing environment, the representation based on a unified data schema, wherein the unified data schema is mapped to a plurality of data schemas, each data schema corresponding to a unique data source;
receiving an event record from a first data source;
extracting data from the event record, the extracted data indicating a change in the network topology; and
updating the representation of the unified network topology based on the extracted data from the event record.
Claim 2,
determining that the event record relates to a parent resource; updating the representation of the unified network topology in response to determining that the event record relates to the parent resource.
Claim 1
A method for evicting a resource from a unified network topology of a computing environment, comprising:
generating a representation of a unified network topology for a network topology of a computing environment, the representation based on a unified data schema, wherein the unified data schema is mapped to a plurality of data schemas, each data schema corresponding to a unique data source;
receiving an event record at a first time, the event record including a resource identifier; (an event record is inherently from a data source)
updating in the unified network topology a representation corresponding to the resource based on extracted data from the event record at the first time;
Claim 2
determining that the representation is a representation of a parent resource;
Claims 10-12 are rejected under similar rationale in view of claims 9-11 of Application 19/550,093.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Avery et al. U.S. Patent publication 10,747,569.
Claims 1, 10 and 11,
Avery discloses
A method for updating a unified network topology for a computing environment, comprising:
generating a representation of a unified network topology for a network topology of a computing environment (col 7, lines 15-16- the coexisting topologies discovery system may chain the topologies),
the representation based on a unified data schema, wherein the unified data schema is mapped to a plurality of data schemas, each data schema corresponding to a unique data source (see fig. 1, col 9, lines 30-35- The coexisting topologies discovery system 165 may parse network traffic data into object data and relationship data. Object data represents an object of the enterprise network, and may include an internet protocol (IP) address and attributes of the network object.
Col 15, lines 4-9- The communication module 202 may send the requested application data to the parsing module 212. The communication module 202 may receive the request from the topology control module 206 and in response send the request to the parsing module 212 to received application data into object data and relationship data.
Col 15, lines 21-26- Network data may be received from different sources. The object entries and relationship entries parsed from the network data may be used to build or update the master topology. Depending on the source of the received network data, the master topology may be able to output a topology with different context.
Col 21, lines 54-63- Multiple topologies may be combined in a number of ways:
i) topologies may be queried independently, the independently queried topology are aggregate and the aggregated topology be outputted; and ii) chain the topologies by querying one topology, output the queried topology and use the outputted topology as a filter or starting point for subsequent topologies.) ;
receiving an event record from a first data source (col 26, lines 51-59- The parsing module 212 may receive application data from the input module 204 and parse the application data into object data and/or relationship data. Object entries may be created for each application instance, and entities of the enterprise network which make up the application instance. In one embodiment, relationship data parsed from the application data may include the relationship between two or more object entries, such as linking an object entry associated with an application instance to another object entry associated with an entity of the enterprise network which make up the application instance.);
extracting data from the event record, the extracted data indicating a change in the network topology (col 26, lines 54, Col 27, lines 3-5- parsing module 212 may send a request to the relationship table datastore 222 to create or update a relationship entry based on the parsed relationship data.) ; and
updating the representation of the unified network topology based on the extracted data from the event record. ( Col 27, lines 15-20- the linking module 214 may send a request to the link table datastore to create or update a link entry based on the link determined by the linking module 214. A link entry links an object entry with a relationship entry. The link entry may be updated as the relationship associated with the link changes.)
Avery discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions and a processing circuitry; a memory in Col 27, line 42- Col 28, line 47.
Claims 2 and 12,
The method of claim 1, further comprising: parsing the event record to extract the data, wherein parsing the event record is based on a data schema of the plurality of data schemas which is associated with the first data source. (Col 26, line 49-53-The parsing module 212 may receive application data from the input module 204 and parse the application data into object data and/or relationship data. Object entries may be created for each application instance, and entities of the enterprise network which make up the application instance.)
Claims 3 and 13,
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the event record relates to a parent resource; updating the representation of the unified network topology in response to determining that the event record relates to the parent resource (Col 9, line 54-60- The coexisting topologies discovery system may create or update a relationship entry based on the relationship data. A newly created or newly updated relationship entry may be updated to a relationship table. Each relationship entry include attributes or properties of the relationship. Col 10, Table 1- discloses the relationship determine is virtual machine managed by a switch).
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.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al. U.S. Patent publication 10,747,569 in view of Nogueira dos Santos et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2016/0210310.
Claims 6 and 16,
Although Avery discloses substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to disclose
determining for each unique data source a credibility score.
In an analogous art, Nogueira dos Santos discloses
determining for each unique data source a credibility score (para 0035- discloses assigning a score to event or fact based on the reliability and reputations of each data source.)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to applying confidence evaluation of Nogueira dos Santos with the system of Avery to produce the predictable result of determine credibility rankings of the data sources and records of the combined topology.
Claims 7 and 17,
The method of claim 6, further comprising: updating the representation of the unified network topology based on the extracted data from the event record only in response to determining that the first data source has a credibility score exceeding a predetermined value.( Nogueira dos Santos para 0035-discloses unstructured data source function 122 has a minimum score that, if failed to be met, results in unstructured data source function 122 refraining from adding the corresponding event or fact to database 106. )
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to applying reliability filtering of data events of Nogueira dos Santos with the system of Avery to produce the predictable result of filtering network events that fail to satisfy a minimum credibility score.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al. U.S. Patent publication 10,747,569 in view of Nogueira dos Santos et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2016/0210310 in view of Choi et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2021/0279824.
Claims 8 and18,
updating the representation of the unified network topology based on the change in response to determining that a credibility score exceeds a predetermined threshold. (Nogueira dos Santos para 0035-discloses filtering data event based on a minimum credibility score. Only data events that exceed the minimum are added to the database)
Although Avery/Nogueira dos Santos discloses substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to disclose
receiving an event record from the first data source indicating the change, the first data source associated with a first credibility score; receiving a second event record from a second data source indicating the change, the second data source associated with a second credibility score; generating a combined credibility score based on the first credibility score and the second credibility score
In an analogous art, Choi discloses
[generating a blended confidence score for a common record from different data sources] (para 0059-Multiple layers 604 of the linking model correlate different data sources according to different levels of confidence in matches. Scores 606 for each level can be combined into a final score 608 that provides a level of confidence regarding when records in different data sources are referring to the same property, allowing the creation of UPID 214 in FIG. 2. Scoring by the linking model 604 might employ techniques such as, e.g., string normalization and string similarity.)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to applying the blending confidence score of Choi with the system of Avery/Nogueira dos Santos to produce the predictable result of creating a weighted score for a change from a plurality of data sources. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using a plurality of data sources to determine credibility scores reduces the risk of an erroneous rating.
Claims 9 and 19,
The method of claim 8, further comprising: maintaining the representation of the unified network topology in response to determining that the combined credibility score does not exceed the predetermined threshold. (Nogueira dos Santos para 0035)
Same motivation as claims 7 and 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are 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.
Claims 5 and 15 are 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 but for the 35 USC 112 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M COUSINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7746. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00pm EST.
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.
/JMC/Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights