Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicants arguments directed at the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection: Examiner respectfully withdraws the rejection in light of the amendments.
Regarding applicants arguments directed at the 35 U.S.C 112 rejections: Examiner respectfully withdraws the rejection in light of the amendments.
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 1, 3, 5-14, and 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “data generated periodically by each producer” on lines 5-6. The examiner is unsure if “each producer” refers to each of the plurality of telemetry producers or a new producer.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the one or more consumers” on lines 8-9. This element lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “pod components of the nodes” on line 9. This element lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the plurality of pods” on line 19-20, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “checking the telemetry data transmitted from the pod” on line 20, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “receiving telemetry data” and then refers to “the received telemetry data” and then “the telemetry data” and then reintroduces again “telemetry data” and switches back “the telemetry data.” Examiner is unsure when “the telemetry data” refers to which introduced “telemetry data.”
Examiner notes this rejection is inherited by all dependent claims and many of the recited elements in the claims.
Examiner further notes this rejection is applied to:
“one or more consumers,” “subscribed consumers” then in claim 3 introduces new “one or more consumers” then switches back to “the one or more consumers” which unclear if it is referring to “one or more consumers” introduced in claim 1 or claim 3. Then new terminology is introduced in claim 6-7 referring to “telemetry consumers”. Then in claim 8 we get “a list of consumers” then “the consumers” then “the consumer” (singular and lacks antecedent basis in the claims). Then in claim 13 we have “the subscribing consumers” which also lacks antecedent basis because claim 1 recites “the subscribed consumer” which is singular as well as the present and past tense used.
Regarding claims 6-9, and 11, claim 1 recites “a plurality of telemetry producers”, the recites “each producer,” then recites “a producer.” This impacts the dependents for example claim 8, which recites both “a producer” and “the producer.” Examiner is unsure if “the producer” in claim 8 refers to “a producer” in claim 8, or “a producer” in claim 1. Furthermore in claim 6, the claim recites “the original and other producers;” but the original producer was introduced as singular therefore its unclear if the “the original producers” is a new element or referring to the singular form.
Examiner respectfully requests the naming convention be revisited.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the one or more consumers comprises at least one of: pod components of the nodes, storage users, graphical user interfaces (GUI), and storage vendors;” and then recites “wherein the one or more consumers subscribe to receive the respective data through a subscription process; transmitting the respective data to subscribed consumers through a selected transport mechanism;” but then recites “installing the checklist in a compliance library maintained in each pod of the plurality of pods; checking the telemetry data transmitted from the pod against a respective compliance library to determine if the telemetry data is compliant or non-compliant;” The pods are the consumers and not the transmitters.
Examiner respectfully in unsure what is going on here:
First, the consumer is defined to be the pod, and only requires one pod.
Second, the pod is defined to receive “the respective data.”
Then somehow the language indicated that “telemetry data” was “transmitted” from the pod (past tense undefined in the claim) which the claim defines the pod was supposed to receive, and in the method claim the pod has never received the data yet.
Either (1) there are steps missing (2) functional steps are being attributed to the wrong elements or (3) the naming convention is incorrect.
Regarding claims 6-9, and 11, claim 1 recites “a plurality of telemetry producers”, the recites “each producer,” then recites “a producer.” This impacts the dependents for example claim 8, which recites both “a producer” and “the producer.” Examiner is unsure if “the producer” in claim 8 refers to “a producer” in claim 8, or “a producer” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “one or more consumers” and then recites, “the one or more consumers” examiner is unsure if “the one or more consumers” refers to “one or more consumers” introduced in claim 3, or “one or more consumers” introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Claims 12 recites:
“the cluster network includes nodes each containing a plurality of pods…”
then claim 13 references “the plurality of nodes each contain a plurality of pods…”
It is not clear how both the cluster network and the plurality of nodes each contain a plurality of pods.
Examiner respectfully stops here, the inconsistent naming convention, inconsistent singular v. plural element usage, inconsistent past and present tense used, and the antecedent basis issues, have rendered the claims ambiguous and it would cause undue hardship for the examiner to attempt to interpret the claims in light of the issues.
Applicant is respectfully requested to:
Correct antecedent basis issues in the claim.
Correct singular v. plural elements being introduced.
Correct past and present tense verbiage used.
Correct all naming conventions, if a new element is being introduced call it a “second [element]” or adopt some convention that differentiates between previously introduced and newly introduced elements.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are not being rejected under any prior art rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDERRAHMEN H CHOUAT whose telephone number is (571)431-0695. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9AM to 5PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
Abderrahmen Chouat
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights