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
Preliminary Amendment filed 09/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are cancelled; claims 21-40 are new. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “a computing device” in line 4, when the claim previously recites “a computing device” in line 2. Examiner suggests the amendment “[[a]] the computing device” in line 4 for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-30 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.
Claim 21 recites “the computing device” in line 6. This limitation is unclear, as the claim previously recites “a computing device” in line 2 and line 4, and it is unclear which of the recited computing devices is being referred to. Claims 22-30 are rejected as depending from claim 21 and under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-40 are allowed.
Claims 21-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Celichowski et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0200855).
Regarding exemplary claim 21, Celichowski disclosed a method comprising:
collecting, by a computing device, telemetry data related to observability instrumentation points in a network (obtaining, i.e., collecting, telemetry data associated with network technology, i.e., observability instrumentation points, used in an enterprise network, i.e., network, ¶[0110]);
generating, by the computing device, an assessment of a migration process (determining a progression, i.e., assessment of a migration process, based on the telemetry data, ¶[0111]); and
managing, by the computing device, the migration process (generating a first action set/second action set for further progression along the adoption lifecycle, ¶[0112]).
While Celichowski generally disclosed using telemetry data to determine the progression of an adoption lifecycle, Celichowski did not specifically disclose using the telemetry data to detect deployments of cloud-native observability instrumentation, and assessing a migration process of an observability system to a cloud-native observability system as claimed. That is, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or render obvious the specific method, system, and product as set forth in the Specification, p. 14-18, and recited in independent claims 21, 31, and 40, in particular comprising:
detecting, by a computing device and based on the telemetry data, deployments of cloud-native observability instrumentation in the network;
generating, by the computing device and based on the deployments of the cloud-native observability instrumentation in the network, an assessment of a migration process of an observability system of the network to a cloud-native observability system; and
managing, by the computing device, the migration process of the observability system of the network to the cloud-native observability system based on the assessment (claim 21, emphasis added; similarly recited in claims 31 and 40).
These limitations, in conjunction with the other limitations of the independent claims, are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Wing F Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights