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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11, 12-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pignataro et al., US Pub. No.20190182127.
As to claim 1, Pignataro discloses a network device, comprising:
a switch core packet processor (300 fig.3) having a forwarding engine configured to process packets received by the network device to determine ports of the network device via which the packets
are to be forwarded, the switch core packet processor further including circuitry configured to
generate telemetry data that provides information regarding operational status of at least one of i) the network device (120 fig.3), and ii) one or more network links connected to ports of the network device and hardware circuitry configured to:
collect telemetry data generated by the switch core packet processor and generate packets that include respective sets of the telemetry data collected by the hardware circuitry, the packets generated by the hardware circuitry being addressed to a remote network device (340 fig.3) in, or communicatively coupled to, a communication network that includes the network device (120 fig.3) (using the client agent to generate a network heatmap based on application of the Device Risk Heatmap Rule and analyzing the first data and the second data to generate a device risk heatmap rule that determines a level of predictive failure risk as a function of network telemetry data indicative of real-time operations of the network, see abstract, fig.3, [0016], [0034] to [0035]), and
provide the packets to the switch core packet processor to prompt the switch core packet processor to transmit the packets to the remote network device (340 fig.3) via one or more ports of the network device (120 fig.3) (the PCE 300 redirects a path 350 around network element, see [0035] to ‘[0037]).
As to claim 2, Pignataro discloses the hardware circuitry comprises a timer and the hardware circuitry is further configured to: determine times at which to collect the telemetry data using the timer (timer based telemetry, see [0016] and [0034]).
As to claim 3, Pignataro discloses at least some of the packets, as part of generating the packet: add telemetry data to the packet as telemetry data is collected by the by the hardware circuitry (timer based telemetry processing, see [0016] and [0034]).
As to claim 8, Pignataro discloses (CPU) coupled to a memory device, the CPU configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory device, wherein the hardware circuitry is configured to collect the telemetry data generated by the network device without intervention by the CPU (CPU processing, see [0062] to [0063]).
As to claim 9, Pignataro discloses a central processing unit (CPU) coupled to a memory device, the CPU configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory device, herein the hardware circuitry is configured to: collect the telemetry data generated by the network device in response to prompts by the CPU, and at least one of: generate the packets that include the respective sets of the telemetry data without intervention by the CPU, and provide the packets to the switch core packet processor without intervention by the CPU (see [0062] to [0063]).
As to claim 10, Pignataro discloses (CPU) coupled to a memory device, the CPU configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory device, wherein the hardware circuitry is configured to generate the packets that include the respective sets of the telemetry data without intervention by the CPU (CPU processing, see [0055] to [0058).
As to claim 11, Pignataro discloses (CPU) coupled to a memory device, the CPU configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory device and the hardware circuitry is configured to provide the packets to the switch core packet processor without intervention by the CPU (see [0055] to [0058]).
Claims 12-14 and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-3 and 9-11 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 4, 6, 7 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pignataro as in above and in view of Cannata et al., US {ub. No.20230169019.
As to claim 4, Pignataro does not specifically disclose for each of at least some of the packets: determine whether a size of the packet has reached a maximum in connection with adding telemetry data to the packet and in response to determining that the size of the packet has reached the maximum, provide the packet to the switch core packet processor to prompt the switch core packet processor to transmit the packet via one or more ports of the network device. However, in a similar network environment, Cannata discloses for each of at least some of the packets: determine whether a size of the packet has reached a maximum in connection with adding telemetry data to the packet and in response to determining that the size of the packet has reached the maximum, provide the packet to the switch core packet processor to prompt the switch core packet processor to transmit the packet via one or more ports of the network device (based on the current utilization, a dynamic adjustment policy may specify that general processing resources, graphics processing resources storage resources, networking resources, memory resources, and so on, be allocated to a host device or removed from a host device. For example, the telemetry data may show that the current usage level of the allocated storage resources of a host device is approaching a threshold level and allocate an additional storage device to the host device, see abstract, [0058] to [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Cannata’s teachings into the computer system of Pignataro ton control data processing because it would have allowed the user to define policies for adjustments of the peripheral devices allocated to host devices as well as adjustments to the configuration information thereof during operation (see Cannata’s [0058]).
As to claim 6, Pignataro does not specifically disclose for each of at least some of the packets: determine whether a time duration has reached a threshold, the time duration
corresponding a time since the network device transmitted a previous packet having telemetry data and in response to determining that the time duration has reached the threshold, provide the packet to the switch core packet processor (based on the current utilization, a dynamic adjustment policy may specify that general processing resources, graphics processing resources storage resources, networking resources, memory resources, and so on, be allocated to a host device or removed from a host device. For example, the telemetry data may show that the current usage level of the allocated storage resources of a host device is approaching a threshold level and allocate an additional storage device to the host device, see abstract, [0058] to [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Cannata’s teachings into the computer system of Pignataro ton control data processing because it would have allowed the user to define policies for adjustments of the peripheral devices allocated to host devices as well as adjustments to the configuration information thereof during operation (see Cannata’s [0058]).
As to claim 7, Cannata discloses measuring the time duration, and wherein the hardware circuitry is further configured to: determine whether the time duration has reached the threshold using the timer (based on the current utilization, a dynamic adjustment policy may specify that general processing resources, graphics processing resources storage resources, networking resources, memory resources, and so on, be allocated to a host device or removed from a host device. For example, the telemetry data may show that the current usage level of the allocated storage resources of a host device is approaching a threshold level and allocate an additional storage device to the host device, see abstract, [0058] to [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Cannata’s teachings into the computer system of Pignataro ton control data processing because it would have allowed the user to define policies for adjustments of the peripheral devices allocated to host devices as well as adjustments to the configuration information thereof during operation (see Cannata’s [0058]).
Claims 15, 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 4 and 6 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the cited prior art disclose or teaches that for each of at least some of the packets: determine whether a time duration has reached a threshold, the time duration corresponding a time since the network device transmitted a previous packet having telemetry data and in response to determining that the time duration has reached the threshold, provide the packet to the switch core packet processor even when a size of the packet has not reached the maximum.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Cheema Umar, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. The fax phone number for this group 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for patents
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458