DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application Ser. No. 19/075,189 filed on March 10, 2025. Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined.
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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on Taiwanese application Ser. No. 113203490 filed on April 10, 2024. Receipt of the certified copy of the Taiwanese application on March 12, 2025, is hereby acknowledged.
Drawings
Drawings were received on March 10, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated March 10, 2025, is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first collection module”, “a second collection module”, and “an output module” recited in Claim 1, “the first collection module” recited in Claim 3, “the second collection module” recited in Claim 5, “the output module” recited in Claim 9, respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In view of Figure 1 and the associated disclosure on page 8, line 17 through page 9, line 11 of the specification, “a first collection module” is interpreted as being an SNMP poller and “a second collection module” is interpreted as being an SNMP trap service.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 4, the term “number of the plurality of devices” recited in line 3 should be “a number of the plurality of devices”; and
regarding Claim 9, the word “wherein” should be inserted between “and “the device statuses” recited in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-11 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 limitation “an output module connected to the processor and configured to provide the warning event for a user to view” 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. While “Output module 18” is shown in Figures 1 and 2 and is disclosed on page 10, line 26, through page 11, line 5 of the specification as performing the function “provide the warning event for a user or maintenance personnel to view”, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure corresponding to the output module that performs the claimed 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.
Dependent Claims 2-11 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, regarding Claim 9, the limitation “wherein the output module is configured to display the at least one first warning notification, the at least one second warning notification, and the device statuses of the plurality of devices that are viewed by the user” 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. Again, while “Output module 18” is shown in Figures 1 and 2 and is disclosed on page 10, line 26, through page 11, line 5 of the specification as performing the function “display the at least one first warning notification, the at least one second warning notification, and the device statuses of the plurality of devices that are viewed by the user”, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure corresponding to the output module that performs the claimed 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-11 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected as failing to have adequate written description for the claim elements invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) set forth in the rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikenji et al., Pat. No. US 6,639,893 B1, hereby “Chikenji”, in view of Vanjare et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0058042 A1, hereby “Vanjare”.
Regarding Claim 1, Chikenji discloses “An Ethernet protocol-based monitoring system, configured to monitor a plurality of devices in a loop network (Chikenji figs. 14-15; column 20, lines 14-19; and column 28, line 62 through column 29, line 13: network management device 100 for monitoring and managing devices 110E-113E of a ring network), the Ethernet protocol-based monitoring system comprising:
a first status collection server... (Chikenji fig. 15 and column 31, lines 10-26: SNMP manager 502a receives self-notification information including fault management information 526a from managed devices 110E-113E);” and
“a processor... (Chikenji fig. 15 and column 29, lines 54-61: control unit 502); and
an output module connected to the processor and configured to provide the warning event for a user to view (Chikenji figs. 14 and 15; column 29, lines 37-41 and lines 54-57; and column 31, lines 39-54: self-notification display application 505a performs display processing on the display unit 504 based on information related to faults self-notified from the devices to be managed).”
However, while Chikenji discloses utilizing SNMP traps to monitor the operating status of the devices of the ring network (Chikenji column 29, lines 50-54 and column 31, lines 1-21), Chikenji does not explicitly disclose “a first status collection server, including a first collection module and a second collection module, configured to generate at least one first warning notification, wherein the first collection module and the second collection module are respectively configured to obtain device statuses of the plurality of devices in an active manner and a passive manner;
a second status collection server configured to receive system logging protocol (Syslog) data of the plurality of devices based on a system logging protocol (Syslog), thereby generating at least one second warning notification;
a processor, connected to the first status collection server and the second status collection server, setting a warning condition, wherein the processor is configured to compare the at least one first warning notification, the at least one second warning notification, and the warning condition to determine whether a warning event occurs (emphasis added)”.
In the same field of endeavor, Vanjare discloses “a first status collection server, including a first collection module and a second collection module, configured to generate at least one first warning notification, wherein the first collection module and the second collection module are respectively configured to obtain device statuses of the plurality of devices in an active manner and a passive manner (Vanjare figs. 1, 2 and 4 and paragraphs 43, 89, 109, 121, 128 and 132: telemetry service 140 comprises SNMP collector 214E and SNMP trap collector 214A that obtain telemetry data from monitored devices using pull (active) and push (passive) techniques respectively);
a second status collection server configured to receive system logging protocol (Syslog) data of the plurality of devices based on a system logging protocol (Syslog), thereby generating at least one second warning notification (Vanjare figs. 1, 2 and 4 and paragraphs 43, 89, 121 and 130: telemetry service 140 comprises syslog collector 214C that receives syslog data from the monitored devices);
a processor, connected to the first status collection server and the second status collection server, setting a warning condition, wherein the processor is configured to compare the at least one first warning notification, the at least one second warning notification, and the warning condition to determine whether a warning event occurs (Vanjare figs. 1 and 8 and paragraphs 46 and 177: alarm service 142 consumes telemetry data collected by telemetry service 140 and analyzes the telemetry data according to rules and generates a corresponding alarm when a rule is satisfied – while not explicitly stated, a ‘warning condition’ comprised by the rule is inferred).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji to utilize both SNMP telemetry collectors using pull and push collection techniques and a syslog telemetry collector to monitor the devices of the ring network as taught by Vanjare. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine utilizing both SNMP telemetry collectors using pull and push collection techniques and a syslog telemetry collector to monitor the devices of the ring network to enable monitoring based on the telemetry capabilities of the devices of the ring network (Vanjare paragraph 10 and 93).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Chikenji discloses “wherein the first status collection server is configured to collect data and warn based on a simple network management protocol (SNMP) (Chikenji fig. 15 and column 31, lines 10-26: SNMP manager 502a receives self-notification information including fault management information 526a using the SNMP protocol).”
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2.
Additionally, Vanjare discloses “wherein the first collection module sets a debugging condition, the first collection module is configured to discover and poll the plurality of devices based on the simple network management protocol, and when there is an event that meets the debugging condition in the device statuses, the first collection module actively collects the event and generates the at least one first warning notification (Vanjare fig. 4 and paragraphs 46, 122, 132 and 177: SNMP collector 214E can concurrently poll devices to request SNMP-based telemetry data that is analyzed using one or more rules to determine if an alarm should be generated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji to utilize both SNMP telemetry collectors using pull and push collection techniques and a syslog telemetry collector to monitor the devices of the ring network as taught by Vanjare for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2.
Additionally, Vanjare discloses “the first collection module further includes a poller group to expand number of the plurality of devices that have the collectable device statuses (Vanjare fig. 4 and paragraphs 121, 132 and 142: each of telemetry collectors 214, including SNMP collector 214E, can be implemented using multiple instances that horizontally scale to meet monitoring requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji to utilize both SNMP telemetry collectors using pull and push collection techniques and a syslog telemetry collector to monitor the devices of the ring network as taught by Vanjare for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Vanjare discloses “wherein the first status collection server further includes a first database that is connected to the first collection module and the second collection module and configured to store the device statuses collected by the first collection module and the second collection module and the at least one first warning notification, and the first database is a distributed storage-based database cluster (Vanjare fig. 4 and paragraphs 77, 90, 128, 132 and 135: telemetry collectors 214, including SNMP collector 214E and SNMP trap collector 214A, publish collected telemetry data to cache 314, which may be implemented as a distributed database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji to utilize both SNMP telemetry collectors using pull and push collection techniques and a syslog telemetry collector to monitor the devices of the ring network as taught by Vanjare for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Vanjare discloses “wherein the first status collection server further includes a first database that is connected to the first collection module and the second collection module and configured to store the device statuses collected by the first collection module and the second collection module and the at least one first warning notification, and the first database is a distributed storage-based database cluster (Vanjare fig. 4 and paragraphs 77, 90, 128, 132 and 135: telemetry collectors 214, including Syslog collector 214C, publish collected telemetry data to cache 314, which may be implemented as a distributed database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji to utilize both SNMP telemetry collectors using pull and push collection techniques and a syslog telemetry collector to monitor the devices of the ring network as taught by Vanjare for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Chikenji, as modified by Vanjare, discloses “wherein the output module is configured to display the at least one first warning notification, the at least one second warning notification, and the device statuses of the plurality of devices that are viewed by the user, and the device statuses include real-time statuses and historical statuses of the plurality of devices (Chikenji figs. 15, 17 and 20; column 29, lines 37-41; column 31, line 27 through column 32, line 7; column 33, lines 40-53; and column 34, lines 38-59: self-notification display application 505a provides a display on display unit 504 that shows current faults and past events received from the managed devices).”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare in view of Dong et al., Pub. No. CN 113821403 A, hereby “Dong”.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Chikenji discloses an SNMP manager receiving self-notification information, i.e., SNMP trap, including fault management information (Chikenji column 31, lines 10-26), and Vanjare discloses that the telemetry service includes an SNMP trap collector (Vanjare paragraphs 121 and 128), the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare does not explicitly disclose “wherein the second collection module sets a debugging condition, the plurality of devices automatically send a SNMP_Trap message to the second collection module based on a simple network management protocol (SNMP) trap service, and the second collection module is configured to analyze the SNMP_Trap message based on the debugging condition, thereby generating a SNMP_Trap warning notification.”
In a related field of endeavor, Dong discloses “wherein the second collection module sets a debugging condition, the plurality of devices automatically send a SNMP_Trap message to the second collection module based on a simple network management protocol (SNMP) trap service, and the second collection module is configured to analyze the SNMP_Trap message based on the debugging condition, thereby generating a SNMP_Trap warning notification (Dong figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 57-60, 74 and 78 of machine translation: trap alarm analysis and conversion device converts the acquired trap alarm information according to a preset document, i.e., a debugging condition, to obtain an analysis result and determine the fault type of the corresponding component, i.e., generate a warning notification).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji, as modified by Vanjare, to analyze received SNMP trap information according to a preset document to determine a fault type of the corresponding device as taught by Dong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine analyzing received SNMP trap information according to a preset document to determine a fault type of the corresponding device to avoid the burden of manual monitoring thereby improving monitoring efficiency (Dong paragraphs 3 and 39 of the machine translation).”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare in view of Maxwell et al., Pub. No. US 2014/0359694 A1, hereby “Maxwell”.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Vanjare discloses that the telemetry service includes a Syslog collector (Vanjare paragraphs 121 and 130), the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare does not explicitly disclose “wherein the second status collection server includes an engine cluster for searching and analyzing data that is configured to analyze the Syslog data.”
In a related field of endeavor, Maxwell discloses “wherein the second status collection server includes an engine cluster for searching and analyzing data that is configured to analyze the Syslog data (Maxwell fig. 2 and paragraphs 18-26: syslog interceptor 218B of rules processing engine 218 identifies patterns within syslog data based on preconfigured rules, e.g., using regular expression pattern matching).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji, as modified by Vanjare, to identify patterns within Syslog data based on preconfigured rules to automatically detect events of interest in the Syslog data (Vanjare paragraph 12).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare in view of Dong and in further view of the RemotePlatz blog article titled “What are the Most Popular Relational Databases in 2024? Explore Now”, hereby “RemotePlatz”.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Vanjare discloses an alarm service, i.e., a processor, that analyzes the collected telemetry data according to rules and generates a corresponding alarm when a rule is satisfied (Vanjare paragraphs 46 and 177), the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor further includes a third database that is a Microsoft SQL database.”
In a related field of endeavor, Dong discloses “wherein the processor further includes a third database... (Dong figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 70-72 and 74: trap alarm analysis and conversion device, i.e., a processor, saves the alarm information to a relational database).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji, as modified by Vanjare, to store the generated alarms in a relational database as taught by Dong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine storing the generated alarms in a relational database to further improve efficiency of operators in troubleshooting faults of the managed devices (Dong paragraph 70 of the machine translation).
However, while Dong discloses storing the generated alarms in a relational database (Dong paragraphs 70-72 and 74), the combination of Chikenji, Vanjare and Dong does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor further includes a third database that is a Microsoft SQL database (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, RemotePlatz discloses Microsoft SQL database as a popular relational database (RemotePlatz § “Microsoft SQL Server”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji, as modified by Vanjare and Dong, to utilize a Microsoft SQL database to store the generated alarms as taught by RemotePlatz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine utilizing a Microsoft SQL database to store the generated alarms because of its user friendly interface, management tools, reporting and analysis features, and comprehensive backup and restore functions (RemotePlatz § “Microsoft SQL Server”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare in view of Porras et al., Pat. No. US 6,704,874 B1 and in further view RemotePlatz.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Chikenji discloses self-notification display application that performs display processing of fault information of the managed devices (Chikenji column 29, lines 37-41 and lines 54-57; and column 31, lines 39-54), the combination of Chikenji and Vanjare does not explicitly disclose “wherein the output module further includes a fourth database that is a MySQL database.”
In the same field of endeavor, Porras discloses “wherein the output module further includes a fourth database... (Porras fig. 1; column 6, lines 27-31; and column 7, lines 18-32: remote management interface 36, i.e., an output module, accesses database 38 to present the report output of the alert management process).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji, as modified by Vanjare, to access a database storing the fault information of the managed devices to perform the display processing of the fault information as taught by Porras because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (accessing output of an alert management process stored in a database) to known devices and/or methods (a self-notification display application) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (display of the stored fault information to an end user). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Porras discloses accessing a database storing output of an alert management process to present the report output to an end user (Porras column 7, lines 18-32), the combination of Chikenji, Vanjare and Porras does not explicitly disclose “wherein the output module further includes a fourth database that is a MySQL database (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, RemotePlatz discloses MySQL database as a popular relational database (RemotePlatz § “Microsoft SQL Server”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Chikenji, as modified by Vanjare and Porras, to utilize a MySQL database for display processing of the fault information as taught by RemotePlatz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine utilizing a MySQL database for display processing of the fault information because of its scalability to handle large data, easy data replication, distribution and backup and concurrent access management (RemotePlatz § “MySQL”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Toms et al., Pub. No. US 2024/0106693 A1, discloses a method for implementing global Internet Management System (GIMS) wherein data is collected from monitored devices, such as layer 2 switches, by receiving SNMP trap messages and Syslog messages as well as using a polling engine.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights