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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 07/27/2026, and the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended, claims 16-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) filed on 07/27/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by claim amendments.
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) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0271057 A1), hereinafter “Bates” in view of Larson et al. (Patent No.: US 6578131 B1), hereinafter “Larson”.
As to claim 1. Bates discloses, a collection and translation system (Bates, Abstract) comprising:
a collector configured to establish a connection with a network device and receive telemetry data from the network device (Bates, fig.1, 4, [0033], [0061], a server is adapted to establish communication links with a plurality of plant floor adapters and collect specific vendor objects from the plurality of plant floor adapters);
a translator configured to translate vendor-specific notifications into vendor-neutral notifications (Bates, fig.1,4, [0030], [0051], the server platform comprises a message translator that is adapted to map the specific vendor objects to universal object identifiers defined according to an open standard.);
a node map capable of storing vendor-neutral data previously translated by the translator (Bates, fig.1, [0052], [0055] and [0064], the server platform comprises a mapper database that stores the universal object identifiers mapped by the message translator);
a configuration library comprising configuration files indicating which vendor-specific paths should map to which vendor-neutral paths (Bates, fig.1, [0031] and [0032], the server platform comprises an open object metadata registry that stores associations of specific vendor objects and universal object identifiers according to the configuration of the server platform);
a normalized data model (Bates, fig.9, [0066], the server platform comprises an ordinal type automated inference model and a nominal type automated inference model for assigning universal objects identifiers to the server platform); and
a type information database configured to be utilized by the translator to perform type conversion for network telemetry data from vendor-specific formats to a vendor-neutral format (Bates, fig.1, [0032]-[0035], the mapper database of the server platform stores a plurality of mappings between types of specific vendor objects and types of universal object identifiers).
Bates however is silent to disclose explicitly, the collection and translation system further comprises a cache; a cacheing system that cause a read lock or one or more nodes associated with the node map as a search query is executable.
Larson however in the same field of endeavor discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor, the collection and translation system further comprises a cache; a cacheing system that cause a read lock or one or more nodes associated with the node map as a search query is executable (Larson, col.8, lines 42-61, discloses a cache system with a hash table having buckets associated with linked lists of bucket nodes, wherein the a lookup routine uses a “search key” and compares its hash signatures with signature in the bucket nodes to locate a target data item. During such table operations, the reference teaches that after selecting a target bucket, “the process locks the bucket lock 112 for that bucket,” and the bucket lock “serializes all operations on items in a particular bucket.” (col.10, lines 43-57). The reference further teaches caching bucket node information and setting a spin lock on cache memory. (Col.9, lines 12-25 and claims 17 and 19). Thus Larson teaches a cache aware node map arrangement in which a target node associated bucket is locked as a lookup/search is performed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Larson” into those of “Bates” to provide a scaleable hash table for shared memory multi-processor (SMP) that supports very high rates of concurrent operations (e.g., insert, delete, and lookup), while simultaneously reducing cache misses. The SMP system has a memory subsystem and a processor subsystem interconnected via a bus structure. The hash table is stored in the memory subsystem to facilitate access to data items. The hash table is segmented into multiple buckets, with each bucket containing a reference to a linked list of bucket nodes that hold references to data items with keys that hash to a common value. This technique prevents the data to be corrupted from being processed while the search query is performed.
As to claim 8 and 16 are rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2-5, 9-13 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates and Larson as applied to parent claims above, in view of Patel et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0321352 A1), hereinafter “Patel”.
As to claim 2. The combined system of Bates and Larson discloses the invention substantially including, a data path that identifies the data( Bates, [0009], [0030] and [0031], universal identifiers function as paths or structured identifiers that identify the data’s origin, type, and semantic context).
Bates and Larson however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the network telemetry data includes a data value.
Patel discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor, wherein the network telemetry data includes a data value (Patel, [0025], performance metrics associated with indexers e.g., storage and/or processing capabilities…).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of “Patel” into those of “Bates and Larson” to providing dynamic indexer discovery. An index manager, which may also be known as a cluster master, is configured to track the statuses and capabilities of indexers and provide the statuses and capabilities obtained from the indexers to data collectors, such as forwarders. The data collectors may use the statuses and capabilities associated with the indexers to load balance transmission of data to the indexers.
As to claim 3. The combined system of Bates, Larson and Patel discloses the invention substantially including, wherein the collector receives network telemetry data from the network device in the form of streaming update packets, unpacks the packets, deserializes relevant data, and passes the data on to the translator (Patel, [0033], a data source 112 may be defined on an agent computer operating remote from the system 102, such as on-site at a customer's location that transmits source data 130 to one or more forwarders 114 via a communications network (e.g., network 106). The source data 130 can be a stream or set of data fed to an entity of the system 102, such as a forwarder 114. The source data 130 may include, for example, raw machine-generated time-series data, such as server log files, activity log files, configuration files, messages, network packet data, performance measurements, sensor measurements, and/or the like.).
As to claim 4. The combined system of Bates, Larson and Patel discloses the invention substantially including, wherein the node map can store the vendor-neutral data in an in-memory cache (Larson, col.4, lines 63-66, the hash table consists of multiple buckets, where each bucket comprises a linked list of bucket nodes that hold references to data items whose keys hash to a common value or address.).
As to claim 5. The system of claim 3, wherein the configuration files can be encapsulated into human-editable configuration files (Bates, [0066], Contextualized semantic type association 940 of CM types and device types is performed. The semantic type associations may be performed using an ordinal type automated inference model 941, a nominal type automated inference model 942, or some other interference model (not shown).).
As to claim 9, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
As to claims 10 and 17 are rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
As to claim 11, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
As to claim 13, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 4 above.
As to claim 12, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5 above.
As to claim 18, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates, “Qureshi” and “Patel” as applied above in view of Sigoure et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0339002 A1), hereinafter “Sig”.
As to claim 6. The combined system of Bates, Larson and Patel discloses the invention substantially. Bates, Larson and Patel however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the normalized data model can include data models based on a vendor neutral format.
Sig discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the normalized data model can include data models based on a vendor neutral format (Sig, [0033], in this application, are expressions of the vendor-neutral configuration data models (e.g., OpenConfig data models) provided by network administrators through NESI requests. PSRs may be provided by (or obtained from) other sources.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of “Patel” into those of “Bates and Qureshi” to provide a method for managing network element state information (NESI). The method includes receiving, from a target entity, a state information request, storing a preferred transport protocol (PTP), obtaining a preferred serialization encoding (PSE), determining, in response to the state information request, that a program specific representation (PSR) on a network element is populated with the NESI, serializing the PSR using the PSE, and transmitting a serialized PSR, to the target entity, using the stored PTP.
As to claim 7. The combined system of Bates, Larson and Patel discloses the invention substantially. Bates, Larson and Patel however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the vendor neutral format is OpenConfig.
Sig discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the vendor neutral format is OpenConfig (Sig, [0039], the external data model refers to the vendor-neutral configuration data model (e.g., OpenConfig YANG model) published and sent by a network administrator associated with the target entity.).
As to claim 14, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
As to claim 15, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 7 above.
As to claim 20, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
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 TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, 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 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
