DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-6, 8-14, 16, 18-23
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1-6, 8-14, 16
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 7, 15, 17
The following claim(s) is/are new: 18-23
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 16, 18-23 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 6/5/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 16, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 16, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to evaluation without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “merging the data received from the plurality of distributed recorders, wherein the merging comprises sorting the data chronologically according to the time stamps,” which is an evaluation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not require taking any action to improve a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional features include pre-solution data gathering and limitations that simply place the ineligible idea into a particular field of use by asserting conventional computer hardware.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of dependency and because they do not obviate the above-recited deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 18-23 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “data processing apparatus configured to [perform functions]” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. *** Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (EP 4213457) in view of Nixon (US Pub. 2022/0075354) and further in view of Meier-Magruder (US Pub. 2017/0154086).
With respect to Claim 1, Wu teaches a data processing method in an Ethernet network, the Ethernet network comprising a topology of a plurality of devices and a plurality of connections, (An Ethernet network will be taught later. Fig. 1, paras. 15-24; plurality of routers, switches and access points across three sites in a network. The devices provide telemetry data including discovery and connectivity data.)
the data processing method comprising: receiving data from a plurality of synchronized distributed recorders at a plurality of locations in the topology; (Synchronized will be taught later. Fig. 1, para. 15; multiple sites, which is a plurality of locations. Figs. 8-9, paras. 55, 63, 66; interface for sending/receiving data. paras. 22-24, 27; devices provide telemetry data to network analysis system. NAS processes the data to create topology.)
and merging the data received from the plurality of distributed recorders, (Figs. 8-9, paras. 56, 63; processor. paras. 33-35; Received telemetry data is stored and then system aggregates and deduplicates the data.)
But Wu does not explicitly teach an Ethernet network.
Nixon, however, does teach an Ethernet network. (paras. 8-9, 13, 16, 61, 66; Ethernet network.)
synchronized (para. 22, 147; TSN network that synchronizes communication. para. 77, 91; logged data is timestamped.)
wherein the data comprises time stamps, (para. 77, 91; logged data is timestamped. See also Wu, para. 59; time and date stamp for events.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Wu with the ethernet network in order to provide scalability and flexibility. (Nixon, para. 8)
But modified Wu does not explicitly teach sorting chronologically.
Meier-Magruder, however, does teach wherein the merging comprises sorting the data chronologically according to the time stamps. (para. 22; sorting chronologically)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Wu with the chronological sorting in order to provide a picture of the entire system at a given time.
With respect to Claim 2, modified Wu teaches the data processing method of claim 1, and Wu also teaches wherein the data from the plurality of synchronized distributed recorders is received via at least one connection of the plurality of connections. (Examiner asserts that this limitation is implicitly fulfilled because there is no structural difference in nominating what constitutes “the plurality of connections,” i.e. Fig. 1 discloses a plurality of connections, and whichever connections carry the data is simply one of the nominated “plurality of connections” of the ethernet network. Regardless, see Fig. 1, paras. 30; NAS functionality may be performed by a server not shown in Fig. 1 or any other device in the system, and therefore, e.g., Router 108B or some other device at Site B could perform the functionality rather than a NAS on the other side of Network 134. Consequently, the data would be received via connections within the organizational network.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Wu teaches the data processing method of claim 1, and Wu also teaches wherein the data from the plurality of synchronized distributed recorders is received via a connection independent from the plurality of connections. (Examiner asserts that this limitation is implicitly fulfilled because there is no structural difference in nominating what constitutes “the plurality of connections,” i.e. Fig. 1 discloses a plurality of connections, and whichever connections carry the data is simply not one of the nominated “plurality of connections” of the ethernet network. Regardless, see Fig. 1, paras. 15-17; NAS may be connected to the hub-and-spoke network via the internet, which makes the 108B to 134 connection a connection that is not one of the plurality of connections of the organizational network.)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Wu teaches the data processing method of claim 1, and Wu also teaches wherein the locations comprise at least one of the plurality of devices and/ or at least one of the connections. (paras. 22-24, 66, 69; data collected and reported by nodes includes connections, path statistics and probe data. Paras. 58-59; device reports network events of the device.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Wu teaches the data processing method of claim 1, and Wu also teaches wherein the data comprises at least one of data processed by at least one of the plurality of devices, data transmitted using at least one of the connections, or data acquired by at least one of the plurality of devices using a fieldbus and/or external hardware signals acquired by at least one of the plurality of devices. (paras. 33-35; Received telemetry data is stored and then system aggregates and deduplicates the data. paras. 22-24, 27; devices provide telemetry data to network analysis system. Paras. 58-59; device reports network events of the device. para. 28; system infers non-reporting devices from data from reporting devices.)
With respect to Claim 6, modified Wu teaches the data processing method of claim 1, and Wu also teaches further comprising configuring the synchronized distributed recorders for transmitting data to be processed by the data processing method. (para. 21, 24, 69; device configured for providing telemetry information. Because configuring may include synchronizing, see also Nixon, para. 22, 147; TSN network that synchronizes communication.)
With respect to Claim 8, modified Wu teaches the data processing method of claim 1, and Wu also teaches wherein merging comprises at least one of sorting the data, filtering the data, or combining the data. (paras. 33-35; Received telemetry data is stored and then system aggregates and deduplicates the data.)
With respect to Claims 9-14, 16, they are substantially similar to Claims 1-6, 8, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 18, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 20, modified Wu teaches the system of Claim 18, and Wu also teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of synchronized distributed recorders records external hardware signals, and wherein the merging comprises sorting the external hardware signals chronologically with data from the Ethernet network according to the time stamps. (Sorting was taught above. para. 22; device reports on connectivity to other network devices, which is external hardware signals.)
With respect to Claim 21, modified Wu teaches the system of Claim 18, and Wu also teaches wherein the data processing apparatus is further configured to: deploy the plurality of distributed recorders at the plurality of locations in the Ethernet network to capture traffic data with the time stamps; (Fig. 1, paras. 15-24; plurality of routers, switches and access points across three sites in a network, which suggests deployment. See also para. 59; configuration changes to devices.)
and Nixon also teaches synchronize the plurality of distributed recorders. (para. 22, 147; TSN network that synchronizes communication. para. 77, 91; logged data is timestamped.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (EP 4213457) in view of Nixon (US Pub. 2022/0075354) in view of Meier-Magruder (US Pub. 2017/0154086) and further in view of Schwamborn (US Pub. 2022/0278871).
With respect to Claim 19, modified Wu teaches the system of Claim 18, but does not explicitly teach a synchronization offset.
Schwamborn, however, does teach wherein at least one of the plurality of synchronized distributed recorders records data from a fieldbus different from Ethernet, and wherein the merging comprises applying a synchronization offset between the Ethernet network and the fieldbus to the time stamps. (Synchronization was previously taught. paras. 12-13, 17-19; offset calculation of fieldbus timing between domains.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Wu with the synchronization offset in order to link time-sensitive fieldbusses despite them not being completely compatible. (Schwamborn, para. 14)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (EP 4213457) in view of Nixon (US Pub. 2022/0075354) in view of Meier-Magruder (US Pub. 2017/0154086) and further in view of Dornerworks (https://www.dornerworks.com/blog/time-sensitive-networking-tsn-deterministic-communication-with-time-aware-shaping/, October 2022).
With respect to Claim 23, modified Wu teaches the system of Claim 18, and Nixon also teaches wherein the Ethernet network comprises a Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) network, (paras. 22, 163; TSN)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
But modified Wu does not explicitly teach Time Aware Shaping.
Dornerworks, however, does the data processing apparatus is further configured to use the merged data to debug TimeAwareShaping based communication in the TSN network. (pgs. 2-4; Timeaware Shaping. With respect to debugging, the claim does not limit how the data is used to perform debugging or a particular manner of debugging. Consequently, the feature of debugging in general is obvious because routine optimization is obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Wu with the Time Aware Shaping in order to prevent collisions in communications.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 6-8 that the amended independent claims are nonobvious. Specifically, Applicant argues that Wu does not have timestamps. Examiner cited Nixon for timestamps. Applicant argues Nixon does not anticipate the entirety of the limitation. Examiner agrees inasmuch as Nixon does not teach chronological sorting. Examiner cites Meier to teach chronological sorting. Claims 19-23 contain subject matter appearing for the first time. Examiner rejects all of those claims under 103, some requiring new teachings, above with the exception of Claim 22 because a FastForwardMode could not be found in the prior art.
In addition, the amendments to the independent claims make the independent claim inventions about sorting gathered data, which is a mental act. Examiner makes no judicial exception rejection to Claims 22 and 23 because they purport to improve computers to make a configuration change and debug Time Aware Shaping. Examiner makes a 112b in view of f rejection to Claims 18-23, which rely upon an apparatus configured to perform functions without disclosure of a particular algorithm for achieving the result, see MPEP 2181.
All claims are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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 on 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://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights