DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (18/790,423) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 18/790,423, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l) recites “Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l) for failing to include letters durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. See Figs. 6, 9.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) recites “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed.”
Fig. 4, item 400 is a reference character that does not indicate a surface or cross section on which it is placed. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) for failing to include lead lines for each reference character. Fig. 5, item 507, 508, 509, 515; Fig. 6, item 600, 602, 604, 610; Fig. 7A, item 702; Fig. 7B, item 704; Fig. 7C, item 706; Fig. 9, items 906, 911, 913, 915, 917 by analogy.
Moreover, 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(r) recites “Arrows may be used at the ends of lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows: (1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points.”
Fig. 4, item 400 appears to indicate the entire section towards which it points. Thus, the Examiner recommends adding to arrow at the end of the lead line. It is unclear whether items 72, 704, 706 indicate the entire section towards which it points.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) recites “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) for failing to include letters measuring at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See Fig. 5; Fig. 6; Fig. 9.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) recites “Numbers, letters, and reference characters . . . should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) for failing to include letters that do not cross or mingle with the lines. See Figs. 5, 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants 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.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1):
The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.
The Specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Notably, Specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for of the terms “telemetry transmitter,” “comparator component,” “telemetry pipeline component,” and “telemetry transmitter” recited in claim 15.
The use of trade names or marks used in commerce (e.g., “Dell” and “EMC” at Spec. ¶ 7) has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as TM, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trade marks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
This is not an objection to the Specification.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a):
The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
Claims 1–9, 11–14, and 16–19 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a) for the following informalities:
(i) claim 1, line 3, should be “the cluster network.”
(ii) claim 2, line 2, should be “the new data is the same as the previous data.”
(iii) claim 3, line 2, should be “the new data is not the same as the previous data.”
(iv) claim 4, line 1, should be “that is not the same as the previous data.”
(v) claim 11, line 3, should be “the new data.” Claim 16 by analogy.
Means-plus-Function Language
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof
The claims in the instant application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the Specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the Specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in the instant application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations1 are:
“pod” (claim 1, line 3; claim 10, line 4; claim 15, line 4);
“telemetry pipeline” (claim 8, line 1; claim 14, line 1; claim 19, line 1);
“collector” (claim 8, line 2; claim 14, line 2; claim 19, line 2);
“comparator component” (claim 15, line 8);
“telemetry pipeline component” (claim 15, line 10); and
“receiver” (claim 17, line 3).
If Applicants do not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicants may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke § 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of § 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(i) As discussed above, claim element “pod” (claim 1, line 3; claim 10, line 4; claim 15, line 4) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the Specification states the claimed function of transmitting streaming data is performed by a “pod.” See Spec. ¶ 64. But the use of the term “pod” is not adequate structure for performing streaming data transmission because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “pod” may be hardware, software or a combination of the two. Thus, the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
(ii) As discussed above, claim element “telemetry pipeline” (claim 8, line 1; claim 14, line 1; claim 19, line 1) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the Specification states “[i]n an embodiment, system 150 may implement an open telemetry system (OTEL).” Spec. ¶ 35. Figure 2 illustrates system 150 as being “TELEMETRY PROCESSING COMPONENTS” comprising items 152–166, but the Specification does not describe a particular structure of system 150. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, system 150 may be hardware, software or a combination of the two. Thus, the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
(iii) As discussed above, claim element “collector” (claim 8, line 2; claim 14, line 2; claim 19, line 2) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the Specification discloses open telemetry collector 604 receiving input using “gRPC (remote procedure call) interfaces.” Spec. ¶ 68. But the Specification does not describe a particular structure of open telemetry collector 604. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, open telemetry collector 604 may be hardware, software or a combination of the two. Thus, the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
(iv) As discussed above, claim element “comparator component” (claim 15, line 8) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Examiner is unable to find in the Specification the term “comparator component,” let alone the claimed function the claim element “comparator component” (claim 15, line 8) performs. Thus, as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the claimed comparator component may be hardware, software or a combination of the two. Thus, the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
(v) As discussed above, claim element “telemetry pipeline component” (claim 15, line 10) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Examiner is unable to find in the Specification the term “telemetry pipeline component,” let alone the claimed function the claim element “telemetry pipeline component” (claim 15, line 10) performs. Thus, as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the claimed telemetry pipeline component may be hardware, software or a combination of the two. Thus, the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
(vi) As discussed above, claim element “receiver” (claim 17, line 3) is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. According to the Specification, “[i]f the referenced epoch value does not exist, the receiver of the telemetry
pipeline requests the missing data from the cache, step 917.” Spec. ¶ 91. But the Specification does not describe a particular structure of the receiver. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the receiver may be hardware, software or a combination of the two. Thus, the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
(vii) As discussed above with respect sections (i)–(vi), the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions of the “pod” (claim 1, line 3; claim 10, line 4; claim 15, line 4); “telemetry pipeline” (claim 8, line 1; claim 14, line 1; claim 19, line 1); “collector” (claim 8, line 2; claim 14, line 2; claim 19, line 2); “comparator component” (claim 15, line 8); “telemetry pipeline component” (claim 15, line 10); and “receiver” (claim 17, line 3).
The written description, therefore, fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicants may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the Specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the Specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.175(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
(viii) claim 1, line 4, “the pod” lacks clear antecedent basis. The limitation adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to which pod among pods2 is being referred to.
Claim 1, line 7 by analogy.
(ix) claim 1, line 7, “the cache” lacks clear antecedent basis. The limitation adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to which cache among caches3 is being referred to.
Claim 1, line 8 by analogy.
(x) claim 4, line 1 “for data that is not the same” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the data is the data that is not the same from claim 1 lines 10–11 or not.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to the data that is not the same from claim 1 lines 10–11. See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
Claim 12, line 1 by analogy.
(xi) claim 5, line 2, “the epoch” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the epoch is the defined epoch introduced in claim 1, line 5 or the current epoch introduced in claim 4, line 3.
Claim 6, line 2 by analogy.
(xii) claim 10, line 6, “each pod” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the pods among each pod the pods among each pod introduced in claim 10, line 4 or not.
Claim 15, line 6 by analogy.
(xiii) claim 10, line 9, “some telemetry data values” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the telemetry data values are the telemetry data values of the previous and present metric datasets introduced in claim 10, line 7 or not.
Claim 15, lines 10–11 by analogy.
(xiv) claim 10, line 11, “non-identical telemetry data values” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the telemetry data values are the telemetry data values introduced in claim 10, line 7 or not.
Claim 15, line 12 by analogy.
(xv) claim 11, line 2, “the new data” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 16, line 2 by analogy.
(xvi) claim 11, lines 2–3, “the telemetry pipeline” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 16, line 2 by analogy.
(xvii) claim 20, line 2, “the data” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain whether the data is (a)the streaming telemetry data introduced in claim 15, line 4, (b) the telemetry data values of the previous metric datasets introduced in claim 15, line 8, or (c) the telemetry data values of the present metric datasets introduced in claim 15, line 8.
(xviii) MPEP § 2173.05(u) recites
If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982).
Claim 8 recites trademarks SANTORINI and KUBERNETES to identify or describe a particular material or product. Claim 8, then, is rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claims 14 and 19 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 1034
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.
Englin and Doshi
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Englin et al. (US 6,857,049 B1; filed Aug. 30, 2000) in view of Doshi et al. (US 2024/0005777 A1; filed Sept. 14, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, while Englin teaches a method of processing data (5:29–42) in a cluster network (fig. 1) having a plurality of pods (fig. 1, items 18, 20, 22, 24), comprising:
receiving data (“data is found within second level cache memory 122” at 5:36–37; “a level three cache memory request is made via path 178 and memory bus 130. As soon as the data is available” at 5:39–40; “The data to be flushed is transferred to flush buffer 186” at 5:38–39) from each pod of the network;
deploying a cache (fig. 2, item 48; “FIG. 2 is a more detailed block diagram of POD 20. . . . The actual storage for the level three cache memory is TLC SRAMS 48.” at 4:52–55) in each pod for storing data generated by the pod (intended use in italics);
defining an epoch (the time “a data request is made from level one operand cache memory 114 of instruction processor 110 (see also FIG. 3). In accordance with the present invention, the data request is made on memory bus 118.” at 5:30–34) to collate the data for storing as a dataset in a database table (intended use in italics);
storing new data (“To provide a place to store the newly requested data, cache memory 122 may need to flush some older data, if all locations are full.” at 5:43–45) generated by the pod in the cache;
comparing the new data with previous data (“If the requested data is found within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., a cache hit)” at 5:36–37; “if a cache miss occurs within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., the data is not present)” at 5:38–39) stored in the cache with respect to the defined epoch to determine if any of the new data is changed from the previous data (intended use in italics); and
sending the new data to a path (“space becomes quickly available within level two cache memory 122 for accommodating the newly requested data as soon as available” at 5:52–55 at least suggests a path to send the newly requested data to the level two cache memory 122 when the level two cache memory 122 becomes available) for storage in a datastore (intended use in italics) if 5 the new data is not the same (“a level one cache memory miss” at 5:30; “a cache miss occurs within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., the data is not present)” at 5:38–39) as the previous data,
Englin does not teach (A) the data being streaming telemetry data; and (B) the path being a telemetry pipeline.
Doshi teaches streaming telemetry data (“streaming telemetry data 202” at ¶ 93); and
a telemetry pipeline (“one or more telemetry pipelines” at ¶ 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Englin’s data to be streaming telemetry data and for Englin’s path to be a telemetry pipeline as taught by Doshi to “improve the performance of the network.” Doshi ¶ 80.
Regarding claim 2, while Englin teaches further comprising:
setting a Boolean value to False if6 the data is the same; and
sending the new data (“To provide a place to store the newly requested data, cache memory 122 may need to flush some older data, if all locations are full.” at 5:43–45) and the False Boolean value to a receiver of the path (“If the requested data is found within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., a cache hit), the data access occurs.” at 5:36–37), wherein the path does not transmit the new data to the datastore (“If the requested data is found within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., a cache hit), the data access occurs.” at 5:36–37 includes not sending the requested data to a datastore).
Englin, Doshi, and Hayashi
Claims 3, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Englin in view of Doshi, and in further view of Hayashi et al. (US 2012/0323341 A1; PCT filed Mar. 4, 2011).
Regarding claim 3, while Englin teaches further comprising:
setting a data request if7 the data is not the same (“Following a level one cache memory miss, a data request is made from level one operand cache memory 114 of instruction processor 110 (see also FIG. 3).” at 5:30–33; “a cache miss occurs within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., the data is not present)” at 5:38–39);
sending the new data (“the newly requested data” at 5:43) to the receiver of the path (“the rewrite can be accomplished, space becomes quickly available within level two cache memory 122 for accommodating the newly requested data as soon as available” at 5:52–55 at least suggests a path to send the newly requested data to the level two cache memory 122 when the level two cache memory 122 becomes available); and
inserting the new data in a database (“level two cache memory 122” at 5:52–55) stored in the datastore,
Englin does not teach (A) the setting the data request including setting a Boolean value to True; (B) sending the True Boolean value to the receiver; and (C) the path being a telemetry pipeline.
(A), (B)
Hayashi teaches setting a Boolean value to True (“Boolean values set to TRUE” at ¶ 93; “set Boolean value to TRUE” at ¶ 112); and
sending the True Boolean value to a receiver (“Boolean value is transmitted to the logical processing part 20” at ¶ 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Englin’s setting the data request to include a Boolean value to True and for Englin to send the True Boolean value to the receiver as taught by Hayashi to provide “high reliability, and contributing an improvement of the” cluster network. Hayashi ¶ 62.
(C)
Doshi teaches a telemetry pipeline (“one or more telemetry pipelines” at ¶ 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Englin’s path to be a telemetry pipeline as taught by Doshi to “improve the performance of the network.” Doshi ¶ 80.
Regarding claim 10, while Englin teaches a method of optimizing network bandwidth by encoding duplicate telemetry data values transmitted within a defined time epoch in a cluster network having a plurality of pods (intended use in italics; see § MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
collating data (“data is found within second level cache memory 122” at 5:36–37; “a level three cache memory request is made via path 178 and memory bus 130. As soon as the data is available” at 5:39–40; “The data to be flushed is transferred to flush buffer 186” at 5:38–39) received from each pod (fig. 1, items 18, 20, 22, 24) for a defined epoch that delineates the streaming data into a plurality of metric datasets (intended use in italics);
storing previous (“older data” at 5:44; “The data to be flushed” at 5:48–49) and present metric datasets (“the requested data” at 5:36; “the newly requested data” at 5:43) in a cache (“level one cache memory” at 5:30; “second level cache memory 122” at 5:36–37; “level three cache memory” at 5:39–40) deployed in each pod;
comparing telemetry data values (“a level one cache memory miss” at 5:30; “If the requested data is found within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., a cache hit)” at 5:36–37; “if a cache miss occurs within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., the data is not present)” at 5:38–39) of the previous and present metric datasets to determine if any of the telemetry data values are identical (intended use in italics);
accessing the telemetry data values (“If the requested data is found within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., a cache hit), the data access occurs.” at 5:36–37) if8 at least some telemetry data values are identical, otherwise setting the Boolean value to False; and
sending non-identical telemetry data values to a datastore9 to update data stored in a database (intended use in italics),
Englin does not teach (A) the data being streaming telemetry data; and (B) the accessing the telemetry data values including setting a Boolean value to True.
(A)
Doshi teaches streaming telemetry data (“streaming telemetry data 202” at ¶ 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Englin’s data to be streaming telemetry data as taught by Doshi to “improve the performance of the network.” Doshi ¶ 80.
(B)
Hayashi teaches setting a Boolean value to True (“Boolean values set to TRUE” at ¶ 93; “set Boolean value to TRUE” at ¶ 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Englin’s accessing the telemetry data values to include setting a Boolean value to True as taught by Hayashi to provide “high reliability, and contributing an improvement of the” cluster network. Hayashi ¶ 62.
Regarding claim 11, while Englin teaches further comprising:
sending the new data and the False Boolean value to a receiver of the telemetry pipeline, wherein the telemetry pipeline does not transmit the new dataset to the datastore;10
sending the non-identical data to the receiver of the telemetry pipeline;11 and
inserting the new data in a database stored in the datastore,12
Englin does not teach sending the True Boolean value to the receiver of the telemetry pipeline.
Hayashi teaches sending the True Boolean value to a receiver (“Boolean value is transmitted to the logical processing part 20” at ¶ 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Englin to send the True Boolean value to the receiver as taught by Hayashi to provide “high reliability, and contributing an improvement of the” cluster network. Hayashi ¶ 62.
Regarding claim 15, while Englin teaches a system (fig. 1) for optimizing network bandwidth by encoding duplicate telemetry data values transmitted within a defined time epoch in a cluster network having a plurality of pods (intended use in italics; see § MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
a telemetry transmitter (“instruction processor 110” at 5:33) collating data (“data is found within second level cache memory 122” at 5:36–37; “a level three cache memory request is made via path 178 and memory bus 130. As soon as the data is available” at 5:39–40; “The data to be flushed is transferred to flush buffer 186” at 5:38–39) received from each pod (fig. 1, items 18, 20, 22, 24) for a defined epoch that delineates the streaming data into a plurality of metric datasets (intended use in italics);
a cache (“level one cache memory” at 5:30; “second level cache memory 122” at 5:36–37; “level three cache memory” at 5:39–40) deployed in each pod storing previous (“older data” at 5:44; “The data to be flushed” at 5:48–49) and present metric datasets generated by a respective pod;
a comparator component (“instruction processor 110” at 5:33) comparing telemetry data values (“a level one cache memory miss” at 5:30; “If the requested data is found within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., a cache hit)” at 5:36–37; “if a cache miss occurs within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., the data is not present)” at 5:38–39) of the previous and present metric datasets to determine if any of the telemetry data values are identical (intended use in italics);
a telemetry pipeline component (“instruction processor 110” at 5:33) accessing the telemetry data values (“If the requested data is found within second level cache memory 122 (i.e., a cache hit), the data access occurs.” at 5:36–37) if at least some telemetry data values are identical, otherwise not accessing the telemetry data values; and
a telemetry transmitter (“instruction processor 110” at 5:33) of sending non-identical telemetry data values to a datastore (“The data to be flushed is transferred to flush buffer 186” at 5:48–49) to update data stored in a database (intended use in italics),
Englin does not teach (A) the data being streaming telemetry data; (B) the accessing the telemetry data values including setting a Boolean value to True; and (C) the not accessing the telemetry data values including setting a Boolean value to False.
(A)
Doshi teaches streaming telemetry data (“streaming telemetry data 202” at ¶ 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Englin’s data to be streaming telemetry data as taught by Doshi to “improve the performance of the network.” Doshi ¶ 80.
(B)
Hayashi teaches setting a Boolean value to True (“Boolean values set to TRUE” at ¶ 93; “set Boolean value to TRUE” at ¶ 112); and
setting a Boolean value to False (“inputted Boolean values set to FALSE” at ¶ 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Englin’s accessing the telemetry data values to include setting a Boolean value to True and for Englin’s not accessing the telemetry data values to include setting a Boolean value to False as taught by Hayashi to provide “high reliability, and contributing an improvement of the” cluster network. Hayashi ¶ 62.
Englin, Doshi, and Marshall
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Englin in view of Doshi, and in further view of Marshall et al. (US 2023/0164041 A1; filed Nov. 22, 2021).
Regarding claim 7, Englin does not teach wherein the streaming telemetry data comprises data generated continuously by each pod upon operation in the cluster network, and consists of performance and health data of the network for transmission to one or more consumers comprising at least one of: pod components of the nodes, storage users, graphical user interfaces (GUI), and storage vendors.
Marshall teaches streaming telemetry data comprises data generated continuously by each pod (“network devices 104A-104N (collectively, ‘network devices 104’) may be arranged into ‘pods.’ Each pod of pods 102A-102N (collectively, ‘pods 102’) may represent a group of, for example, approximately 100 managed network devices. Network devices 104 may stream telemetry flow data to a network analyzer device 108” at ¶ 19) upon operation in a cluster network (fig. 1, item 100), and consists of performance and health data (“use the telemetry flow data to monitor traffic flow to provide visibility into the use of a network. For example, network analyzer device 108 may use the telemetry flow data to perform one or more of troubleshooting network problems, controlling congestion, perform a security and audit analysis, or perform route profiling.” at ¶ 20) of the network for transmission to one or more consumers comprising at least one of: pod components of the nodes, storage users, graphical user interfaces (GUI), and storage vendors (intended use in italics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for the Englin/Doshi combination’s streaming telemetry data to comprise data generated continuously by each pod upon operation in the cluster network, and consists of performance and health data of the network for transmission to one or more consumers comprising at least one of: pod components of the nodes, storage users, graphical user interfaces (GUI), and storage vendors as taught by Marshall “to perform one or more of troubleshooting network problems, controlling congestion, perform a security and audit analysis, or perform route profiling.” Marshall ¶ 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4–6, 8, 9, 12–14, and 16–19 would be allowable if rewritten to (1) overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action; and (2) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes “Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.” Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “compliance mechanism” in a method claim was a means-plus-function term); see also MPEP § 2181.
2 The Examiner notes “each pod” (claim 1, line 3) implies multiple pods.
3 The Examiner notes “a cache in each pod” (claim 1, line 4) implies multiple caches.
4 The Examiner notes claim 20 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the instant Office action. The instant Office action does not indicate this claim as being allowable since the Examiner is not satisfied that the prior art has been fully developed. See MPEP § 707.07(j) (reciting “Where the examiner is satisfied that the prior art has been fully developed and some of the claims are clearly allowable, the allowance of such claims should not be delayed.”).
5 The sending method-step (claim 1, lines 10–11) is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 1. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–5 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition precedent is not met) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ex%20parte%20Schulhauser%202016_04_28.pdf; last visited Mar. 12, 2026); see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
But the Examiner notes there are only two possibilities of claim 1’s new data—either (A) the new data is not the same as the previous data or (B) the new data is the same as the previous data. That is, one possibility must occur from these two possibilities. But only one condition must occur to be satisfied under Schulhauser—not both.
Thus, although (A) the new data as being not the same as the previous data is conditional under Schulhauser, the Examiner elects (A) the new data as being not the same as the previous data as occurring and (B) the new data as being the same as the previous data as not occurring.
6 As discussed above, the Examiner elects (A) the new data as being not the same as the previous data as occurring and (B) the new data as being the same as the previous data as not occurring. Thus, (B) the new data as being the same as the previous data as not occurring is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 3. See n. 1 supra; see also Schulhauser at *3–5; MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
7 As discussed above, the Examiner elects (A) the new data as being not the same as the previous data as occurring. See n. 1 supra; see also Schulhauser at *3–5; MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
8 The setting-to-true method-step (claim 1, line 9) is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 1. See Schulhauser at *3–5; see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
But the Examiner notes there are only two possibilities of claim 10’s telemetry data values—either (A) of the telemetry data values being identical or (B) the telemetry data values are not identical. That is, one possibility must occur from these two possibilities. But only one condition must occur to be satisfied under Schulhauser—not both.
Thus, although (A) the telemetry data values being identical is conditional under Schulhauser, the Examiner elects (A) the telemetry data values being identical as occurring and (B) the telemetry data values not being identical as not occurring.
9 As discussed above, the Examiner elects (A) the telemetry data values being identical as occurring and (B) the telemetry data values not being identical as not occurring. Thus, (B) the telemetry data values not being identical as not occurring is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 10. See n. 1 supra; see also Schulhauser at *3–5; MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
10 See n. 9 supra.
11 See n. 9 supra.
12 See n. 9 supra.