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 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The system does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it lacks composition of matter positively claimed (not just where it is in); It is suggested it be amended to include a processor.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
For claims 1 and 11, the term “the steps” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested claim 1 be amended to “comprising [[the]] steps of:”.
For claims 1-2, 7-9, 12-13, and 18-20, the terms “the pipeline” and “the data processing pipeline” are inconsistent and thus unclear and/or lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Claims 1 and 12 first declare “an end-to-end data processing pipeline” and “a data processing pipeline” respectively. The claim then refers to “the data processing pipeline”. At this point it is reasonable to assume that the data processing pipeline ids short writing for the end-to-end data processing pipeline. Then the claims go back and forth between “the pipeline”, “the data processing pipeline”, which suggests there is more than one pipeline, and thus it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested the claims be amended to be consistent.
For claims 1, 7-8, 12, and 18-19, the terms “the data packets” and “the plurality of data packets” and “the date-time stamped data packets” are inconsistent and thus unclear and/or lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Claims 1 and 12 first declare “a plurality of numerical date-time stamped data packets”. The claims then go back and forth between “the data packets” and “the plurality of data packets” and “the date-time stamped data packets”, which suggests there is more than one type of numerical date-time stamped data packets, and thus it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested the claims be amended to be consistent.
For claims 1 and 12, the term “the respective data packet” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested claims 4 and 15 be amended to “[[the]] a respective data packet”.
For claims 1, 7, 9, 14-15, 18, and 20, the terms “the latency time” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested claims 1 and 12 be amended to “derive measures of [[the]] latency time between…”.
For claims 2 and 13, the term “the numerical date-time stamps” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested claims 2 and 13 be amended to “[[the]] numerical date-time stamps …”.
For claims 4 and 15, the term “the manner” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested claims 4 and 15 be amended to “[[the]] a manner”.
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dearth (US 2019/0297018 A1).
For claim 1, Dearth teaches a method for measuring data flow latency in an end-to-end data processing pipeline comprising the steps of: (see abstract, paragraphs [0005], [0069], [0018], [0027-0028], and other locations: view source and destination endpoints as said end to end) periodically injecting a plurality of numerical date-time stamped data packets into the data processing pipeline, (see abstract, [0019], [0022], [0036], [0069]: injection rate and/or periodical ping as said periodically injecting) the data packets being configured so that they are not rejected by the pipeline as in an unacceptable format, and not processed by the pipeline as valid data, (see locations pointed to above: ping is such a packet) and determining when each of the plurality of data packets has been processed out of the pipeline to derive measures of the latency time between when each of the plurality of data packets was injected into the pipeline and when the respective data packet was processed out of the pipeline (see [0069] : view ping for selected target to determine latency of network from source to destination as said; view source as said injected into and measure at destination as said processed out).
For claim 7, Dearth teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the latency time is determined in part by how often data, including the date-time stamped data packets, are uploaded to the pipeline (see abstract, [0009], and other locations: traffic can be congested and overwhelm; latency depends on that).
For claim 8, Dearth teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the data packets act as carriers for date and time data in addition to other data processed by the data processing pipeline (see [0031]: view payload as said other data than the time).
For claims 11-12, the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claim 1. Claims 11-12 are a system.
For claims 18-19, the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 7-8 respectively. Claims 18-19 are a system.
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 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearth (US 2019/0297018 A1), and further in view of Oppenheimer (US 2019/0379539 A1).
For claim 2,
Dearth teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Dearth does not explicitly teach “converting the numerical date-time stamps into alpha cipher code compliant with processing in the pipeline”.
However, Oppenheimer teaches converting the numerical date-time stamps into alpha cipher code compliant with processing in the pipeline (see [0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dearth to include “converting the numerical date-time stamps into alpha cipher code compliant with processing in the pipeline.”, as taught by Oppenheimer, because each one of Dearth and Oppenheimer teach time stamping in networks therefore, they are analogous arts and because it ensures security using encryption (see [0031]).
For claim 3,
The combination of Dearth and Oppenheimer teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons above.
The claim further recites aggregating the measures of latency time (see [0036]: average is calculated using adding/aggregating).
For claim 13-14,
Dearth teaches the limitations of claim 12 for the reasons above.
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 2-3 respectively.
Claims 13-14 are a system.
Claims 4-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearth (US 2019/0297018 A1), in view of Oppenheimer (US 2019/0379539 A1) and further in view of Bower (US 2012/0216019 A1).
For claim 4,
The combination of Dearth and Oppenheimer teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons above.
The combination of Dearth and Oppenheimer does not explicitly teach “aggregating the measures of latency time to produce a graph of the manner in which latency time varies as a function of time”.
However, Bower teaches aggregating the measures of latency time to produce a graph of the manner in which latency time varies as a function of time (see abstract: view graph with latency and time domain as clock cycles as said)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dearth and Oppenheimer to include “aggregating … function of time”, as taught by Bower, because each one of Bower, Dearth, and Oppenheimer teach time stamping in networks therefore, they are analogous arts and because graphing is useful method to demonstrate problem for debugging (see abstract).
For claim 5,
The combination of Bower, Dearth, and Oppenheimer teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons above.
Bower further teaches displaying the graph on a user dashboard (see [0147]: displaying using GUI; figures 4x are displayed on the screen and are graphs)
For claim 6,
The combination of Bower, Dearth, and Oppenheimer teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons above.
Dearth further teaches the graph comprises a first display of latency of markets as a function of time (see [0040]: latency is always estimated per locality; view locality as said market
Bower further teaches and a second display of latency of user systems as a function of time (see [0147] and figures 4x)
For claims 15-17,
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 4-6 respectively.
Claims 9-10 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearth (US 2019/0297018 A1), in view of Yao (US 2024/0397362 A1).
For claim 9,
Dearth teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Dearth does not explicitly teach “sounding an alarm when the measures of the latency time indicate an abnormal condition in the data processing pipeline”.
However, Yao teaches sounding an alarm when the measures of the latency time indicate an abnormal condition in the data processing pipeline (see title, [0020], [0178])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dearth to include “sounding an alarm … pipeline”, as taught by Yao, because each one of Dearth and Yao teach measuring packet latency in a pipeline therefore, they are analogous arts and because sound alarm are more noticeable than screen alarm (see title, [0020], [0178]).
For claim 10,
The combination of Dearth and Yao teaches the limitations of claim 9 for the reasons above.
Yao further teaches the abnormal condition is at least one of insufficient system capacity and undue processing delays (see title, [0020], [0178])
For claims 20-21,
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 9-10 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights