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 .
Claim status in the amendment received on 4/16/2026:
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 have been amended.
New claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been considered and in response to the amendments:
The previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Manghirmalani does not teach or suggest the limitation:
“determining, by the first node and based at least in part on the first indication and without reference to an externally configured classification policy, first telemetry data of the specific type, the first telemetry data being locally that is associated with the first node;”. The examiner respectfully traverses.
For example, Manghirmalani teaches in paragraph [0073], a node in the network (fig. 11) determines, based on timestamp indication on a received packet, telemetry data of type “time”. The time is associated with the node, thus locally associated. The act of determining is performed by the node, at the time of the determining, without reference to an externally configured classification policy. In other words, it is determined locally based on the packet itself, rather than externally configured classification policy.
With respect to the argument that “timestamp marker” is not the same as “first indication”. The examiner respectfully traverses. Manghirmalani explicitly teach that the markings are instructions to tell the node what action to perform. Please see at least fig. 4, 405-420.
With respect to the argument that “offset value” is not the same as “second indication”. The examiner respectfully traverses. Manghirmalani explicitly teach in paragraph [0073], “offset 705 includes an offset value indicating where the next timestamp is to be inserted in timestamp marker 700 by the recipient of the marked packet”, “where the next timestamp is to be inserted” teaches a location within a header of the packet where the data is to be inserted. Manghirmalani further teaches, at least in paragraph [0073], the offset is modified by each respective node as the packet traverses the path (fig. 11).
Therefore, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, the underlined limitations below are not sufficiently supported by the specification.
“determining, by the first node and based at least in part on the first indication and without reference to an externally configured classification policy, first telemetry data of the specific type, the first telemetry data being locally that is associated with the first node;”
As to the claim(s) that are dependent on claim(s) 1, 8 or 15, the dependent claim(s) are also rejected under 112(a) for the same reason of their base claim(s).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manghirmalani et al. (Pub. No.: US 20160330111 A1).
As to claim 1, Manghirmalani teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a first node of a network, a packet that is to be sent to at least a second node of the network (paragraph [0064], “…a classifier receives a packet…” and fig. 2), the packet comprising:
a first indication of a specific type of telemetry data that the first node is to append to the packet (paragraph [0073], “timestamp marker” teaches a first indication of timestamp type of telemetry data);
a second indication of a first location within a header of the packet where the first node is to append the specific type of the telemetry data (paragraph [0073], “offset 705 includes an offset value indicating where the next timestamp is to be inserted in timestamp marker 700 by the recipient of the marked packet”, “offset value” teaches a second indication);
determining, by the first node and based at least in part on the first indication and without reference to an externally configured classification policy, first telemetry data of the specific type, the first telemetry data being locally associated with the first node (paragraph [0073], i.e. determining the timestamp for the node);
appending, by the first node and based at least in part on the second indication, the first telemetry data at the first location within the header (paragraph [0073], “…in this example, the first recipient of the marked packet will insert a timestamp at a location that is 0 bytes after offset 705…”);
modifying, by the first node, the second indication of the packet to indicate a second location within the header where the second node is to append second telemetry data of the specific type, the second telemetry data being associated with the second node (paragraph [0073], “…the classifier which inserted the timestamp is also configured to update the value in offset 705 by adding the offset value with a value corresponding to the size of the inserted timestamp…”); and
sending the packet to the second node, the packet including the first telemetry data and the second indication indicating the second location (paragraph [0066], “once the markers have been processed and the required operations have been performed, the SFF or SF associated with the classifier forwards the marked (or re-marked) packet to the next node” and fig. 4).
As to claim 4, Manghirmalani teaches wherein the specific type of telemetry data comprises timestamp data representing a time at which the first node handled the packet, the timestamp data comprising at least one of a full timestamp or a short timestamp representing a portion of the full timestamp (paragraph [0075], “a classifier is to insert a timestamp of when the marked packet was received”).
As to claim 5, Manghirmalani teaches receiving the packet at the second node (paragraph [0064], “…a classifier receives a packet…” and fig. 2, i.e. another classifier), the packet comprising:
determining, by the second node and based at least in part on the first indication, the second telemetry data of the specific type, the second telemetry data being associated with the second node (paragraph [0073], i.e. determining the timestamp for the node);
appending, by the second node and based at least in part on the second indication indicating the second location, the second telemetry data at the second location within the header (paragraph [0073], “…in this example, the first recipient of the marked packet will insert a timestamp at a location that is 0 bytes after offset 705…”);
modifying, by the second node, the second indication of the packet to indicate a third location within the header where a third node is to append third telemetry data of the specific type, the third telemetry data being associated with the third node (paragraph [0073], “…the classifier which inserted the timestamp is also configured to update the value in offset 705 by adding the offset value with a value corresponding to the size of the inserted timestamp…”); and
sending the packet to the third node, the packet including the first telemetry data, the second telemetry data, and the second indication indicating the third location (paragraph [0066], “once the markers have been processed and the required operations have been performed, the SFF or SF associated with the classifier forwards the marked (or re-marked) packet to the next node” and fig. 4).
As to claim 6, Manghirmalani teaches the first indication comprises one or more action bits that indicate the specific type of the telemetry data that the first node is to append to the packet (paragraph [0006], “a set of zero or more markers that are to be included as part of packets belonging to the class”); and
the second indication comprises one or more offset bits that indicate an offset for the first location where the first node is to append the specific type of the telemetry data (paragraph [0008], “… an offset value indicating a location in the first marker where a timestamp is to be inserted”).
As to claim 7, Manghirmalani teaches wherein the second node is a sink node, the method further comprising: receiving the packet at the second node (paragraph [0101], “When a classifier at a SFF and/or SF detects the intercept marker”);
sending, by the second node, the telemetry data to a collector associated with the network (paragraph [0101], “The collected bytes are then forwarded, sent, mirrored to a collector and/or database”); and
sending, by the second node, the packet to a destination (paragraph [0101], “collected along the path”).
As to claim 8, Manghirmalani further teaches a system associated with a network, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (paragraph [0118]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claims 11-14, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar to claims 4-7, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
As to claim 15, Manghirmalani further teaches One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (paragraph [0118]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claims 18-20, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar to claims 4-6, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manghirmalani et al. (Pub. No.: US 20160330111 A1) in view of Previdi (Pub. No.: US 20150256456 A1).
As to claim 2, Manghirmalani teach wherein the header is a routing header of the packet and the first indication, and the second indication are included within a first field of the routing header, the method further comprising: determining, by the first node, that a flag field of the routing header is enabled (paragraph [0065], “the classifier determines whether the packet is marked for measurement and/or monitoring”); and
based at least in part on the flag field being enabled, reading, by the first node, the first field including the first indication and the second indication (paragraph [0065], “the classifier reads/processes the marker(s)”).
Manghirmalani does not explicitly segment routing header.
However, in the same field of endeavor (route tracing) Previdi teaches a header is a segment routing header of a packet and a first indication, and a second indication are included within a first field of the segment routing header (paragraph [0098]), the method further comprising: determining, by a first node, that a flag field of the segment routing header is enabled (paragraph [0074], “Transit nodes can inspect flags, forward the packet, and, in some cases, update an SR trace extension header”).
Based on Manghirmalani in view of Previdi, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate segment routing header (taught by Previdi) with data collection headers (taught by Manghirmalani) in order to extend the trace functionality to support different network node types.
As to claim 9, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 2. Please refer to claim 2 above.
As to claim 16, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 2. Please refer to claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manghirmalani et al. (Pub. No.: US 20160330111 A1) in view of Polland (Pub. No.: US 20160142291 A1).
As to claim 3, Manghirmalani does not explicitly teach interface identifier telemetry type.
However, in the same field of endeavor (route tracing) Polland teaches specific type of telemetry data comprises an interface identifier that the first node used to either one of send the packet or receive the packet (paragraph [0022], “each intermediate node 106 is further configured to insert additional details regarding the route the packet travels, such as ingress and egress port information, cable information, etc., as described in more detail below”).
Based on Manghirmalani in view of Polland, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate interface identifier telemetry type (taught by Polland) with data collection telemetry types (taught by Manghirmalani) in order to add additional details regarding the route the packet travels as motivated by Polland (paragraph [0022]).
As to claim 10, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 3. Please refer to claim 3 above.
As to claim 17, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 3. Please refer to claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, 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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights