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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-6, 10-15, 17-19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson et al., US 20180295019 A1 (hereafter referred to as Magnusson).
Claim 1, Magnusson teaches a method for automating network management (p. 36, “a method of configuring a network element in a communication network is presented, wherein the method is performed by a network management component. The method comprises the step of storing at least one configuration profile.”) comprising:
creating a network intent for a network device with a baseline configuration for the network device (p. 41, “The network management component may send an enablement command to the at least one network element. The enablement command enables the configuration profile or a configuration profile group comprising the configuration profile at the at least one network element.” And p. 14, “The configuration profile defines a first set of one or more parameter values for one or more associated configuration parameters of the network element as well as one or more activation conditions for the first set of one or more parameter values.”);
establishing a diagnosis for the network device that includes a comparison with the baseline configuration (p. 92, “the activation conditions may comprise one or more static activation conditions and/or one or more dynamic activation conditions.” Different “configuration profiles” have activations associated with a type of configuration type.);
monitoring variables for the network device (p. 74, “Additionally, …, the parameter value set provided in the configuration profile may be activated for being monitored as indicated in step 212. The monitoring in step 212 may relate to the parameters that have previously been set or to any other parameters.”);
comparing the monitored variables for the network device with the baseline configuration based on the diagnosis (p. 98, “The action part of a configuration profile describes the parameter value or values to use (i.e., to activate) for a configuration object. The statements in the action part can be declarative in the sense that they are used both for assigning values to the configuration and to monitor the configuration compared to these values.”);
identifying a deviation from the baseline configuration based on the comparing (p. 110, “As soon as a configuration profile is active for a configuration object instance at a network element 20, the profile engine 34 at the network element 10 will monitor modifications of the parameters of that instance and compare any new parameter values with (a) the one or more activation conditions of the configuration profile and (b) the configuration parameter values defined in the configuration profile.”);
updating, when the deviation is identified, the network intent based on the diagnosis and the identified deviation (p. 132, “As such, the configuration profile mechanism presented herein can be used to apply and monitor different parameter value settings for different groups of configuration items, all controlled by one or a few marking parameters. By changing a single marking parameter value, a different configuration profile can be applied ….” “In this way, configuration profiles within a particular configuration profile group may be tailored to become automatically activated upon a value change of a predefined marked parameter.”); and
utilizing, iteratively, the updated network intent for the network device with the monitoring and the comparing (p. 128, “As soon as any parameter value is to be changed, the regular functionality of the network element 20 to execute the change will operate as usual.” “when the change takes effect, the profile engine 34 is requested to re-validate its enabled configuration profile groups. The profile engine 34 will then re-evaluate the activation conditions in each configuration profile in these enabled configuration profile groups and will act accordingly.”), wherein the utilizing comprises outputting an executable device status code to verify a design (p. 27, “If the one or more activation conditions defined in the configuration profile are not (e.g., no longer) fulfilled, one or more operations may be triggered. Such operations may comprise a deactivation of the one or more parameter values defined in the configuration profile, a transmission of a report message, and a change of a status attribute associated with the configuration profile or a configuration profile group comprising the configuration profile.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention equate Magnusson’s configuration profiles for network intents based on the correlating monitoring parameters in the profile for a network device. The motivation would have because the configuration profiles are continuously monitored and provide a mechanism for alter configuration profiles based on detected differences.
Claim 2, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network intent is associated with the network device (p. 61, “The network management component 10 of FIG. 1 is adapted to configure the network elements 20 on the basis of configuration profiles and/or configuration profile groups.“) and other network devices have other network intent with variables for those other network devices (p. 79, “The approach presented herein also permits the configuration of collaborating network elements 20 of different types. As an example, a configuration profile group may contain two versions of the same configuration profile, where one version is targeting at an instance of one type of network element 20 and the other version is targeting at an instance of another network element type.”).
Claim 3, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the updated network intent is applied to a second network device (p. 79, “The approach presented herein also permits the configuration of collaborating network elements 20 of different types. As an example, a configuration profile group may contain two versions of the same configuration profile, where one version is targeting at an instance of one type of network element 20 and the other version is targeting at an instance of another network element type.”).
Claim 4, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the utilizing comprises:
outputting at least one of a diagnosis note, device status code, a network intent status code, or a baseline intent (p. 129-130, “If a configuration profile that was previously active for this particular configuration item no longer has its one or more activation conditions fulfilled, it will be marked as inactive for this configuration item. No other action is taken. In particular, no parameter values are changed as a result of this process.” “If a configuration profile that was previously active for the particular configuration item continues to be active, then its actions are examined. If the actions do not match the now present configuration, then the configuration profile is marked as ‘active-but-violated’. Otherwise, it continues to be marked as ‘active’.”).
Claim 5, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the utilizing comprises iteratively applying the updated network intent for the one or more baseline configuration (p. 154, “the present disclosure introduces conditional configuration profiles that permit efficient configuration parameter value monitoring operations (i.e., auditing) as well as configuration parameter value setting operations. The configuration profile may cover all or a certain part of a network element configuration.”).
Claim 6, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the baseline configuration is saved as the network intent (p. 91, “In the active status of a configuration profile, the associated activation conditions are fulfilled and the associated parameter value set has been activated.”), and the monitored variables comprise current data, which is compared with previous data (p. 91, “The active-but-violated status corresponds to the active status in which a monitoring has yielded that one or more of the parameter values defined in the configuration profile are violated.”).
Claim 10, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network intent establishes design rules (p. 88, “Generally, a configuration profile is a description of a set of configuration parameters s and the values these parameters should have in order for a network element 20 (including a logical or physical part of a network element, such as a radio cell, communication port, antenna unit or IP-sec tunnel) to conform to the configuration profile.”), security rules, or establishes repetitive problems.
Claim 11, Magnusson teaches a method for network management comprising:
establishing a network intent that comprises one or more baseline configurations for a network (p. 41, “The network management component may send an enablement command to the at least one network element. The enablement command enables the configuration profile or a configuration profile group comprising the configuration profile at the at least one network element.” And p. 14, “The configuration profile defines a first set of one or more parameter values for one or more associated configuration parameters of the network element as well as one or more activation conditions for the first set of one or more parameter values.”);
monitoring variables in real time (p. 74, “…the parameter value set provided in the configuration profile may be activated for being monitored as indicated in step 212. The monitoring in step 212 may relate to the parameters that have previously been set or to any other parameters.”);
comparing the monitored variables with the one or more baseline configurations configuration (p. 92, “the activation conditions may comprise one or more static activation conditions and/or one or more dynamic activation conditions.” And p. 94, “The dynamic activation conditions can typically only be evaluated within the scope of a particular configuration profile.” Comparison and monitoring used to determine activation.);
diagnosing a deviation from the one or more baseline configurations, which indicates one or more network problems (p. 98, “The action part of a configuration profile describes the parameter value or values to use (i.e., to activate) for a configuration object. The statements in the action part can be declarative in the sense that they are used both for assigning values to the configuration and to monitor the configuration compared to these values.” And p. 110, “As soon as a configuration profile is active for a configuration object instance at a network element 20, the profile engine 34 at the network element 10 will monitor modifications of the parameters of that instance and compare any new parameter values with (a) the one or more activation conditions of the configuration profile and (b) the configuration parameter values defined in the configuration profile.” Modifications determined to be deviations.);
modifying the network intent based on the diagnosing, wherein the modifying comprises (p. 110, “As soon as a configuration profile is active for a configuration object instance at a network element 20, the profile engine 34 at the network element 10 will monitor modifications of the parameters of that instance and compare any new parameter values with (a) the one or more activation conditions of the configuration profile and (b) the configuration parameter values defined in the configuration profile.”) outputting an executable device status code to verify a design (p. 27, “If the one or more activation conditions defined in the configuration profile are not (e.g., no longer) fulfilled, one or more operations may be triggered. Such operations may comprise a deactivation of the one or more parameter values defined in the configuration profile, a transmission of a report message, and a change of a status attribute associated with the configuration profile or a configuration profile group comprising the configuration profile.”);
applying, automatically upon the modifying, the modified, network intent to future diagnosis deviations (p. 128, “As soon as any parameter value is to be changed, the regular functionality of the network element 20 to execute the change will operate as usual.” “when the change takes effect, the profile engine 34 is requested to re-validate its enabled configuration profile groups. The profile engine 34 will then re-evaluate the activation conditions in each configuration profile in these enabled configuration profile groups and will act accordingly.”), wherein the utilizing comprises outputting an executable device status code to verify a design (p. 129-130, “inactive”, “active-but-violated”); and
applying, automatically upon the modifying, the modified network intent for subsequent instances of the monitoring (p. 128, “As soon as any parameter value is to be changed, the regular functionality of the network element 20 to execute the change will operate as usual.” “when the change takes effect, the profile engine 34 is requested to re-validate its enabled configuration profile groups. The profile engine 34 will then re-evaluate the activation conditions in each configuration profile in these enabled configuration profile groups and will act accordingly.”). Magnusson teaches monitoring continuously (p. 5, “One common monitoring approach is to continuously make sure that all parts of the communication network remain configured as intended. For example, it has to be ensured that a temporary re-configuration used for trouble shooting or for fixing a temporary problem does not remain active after these actions have been completed.” Continuously is also real-time.). Magnusson does not specifically teach recite a network intention. However, Magnusson teach a configuration profile comprising configuration parameters comprising a diagnosis state (p. 80 ; “By monitoring only the state of the configuration profiles or configuration profile groups, rather than the individual configuration parameters, the network management component 10 … will immediately be informed of any network element 20 that violates any part of any of its activated configuration profiles.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention equate Magnusson’s configuration profiles for network intents based on the correlating monitoring parameters in the profile for a network device. The motivation would have because the configuration profiles are continuously monitored and provide a mechanism for alter configuration profiles based on detected differences.
Claim 12, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the network intent is associated with a network device (p. 61, “The network management component 10 of FIG. 1 is adapted to configure the network elements 20 on the basis of configuration profiles and/or configuration profile groups.“) and the variables are for that network device (p. 88, “Generally, a configuration profile is a description of a set of configuration parameters s and the values these parameters should have in order for a network element 20 (including a logical or physical part of a network element… “ “. A configuration profile may optionally also contain alternative default values to be used if the network element 20 is created while the configuration profile is active.”) and other network devices have other network intent with variables for those other network devices.
Claim 13, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 12, wherein a second network intent is established for a second network device (p. 79, “The approach presented herein also permits the configuration of collaborating network elements 20 of different types. As an example, a configuration profile group may contain two versions of the same configuration profile, where one version is targeting at an instance of one type of network element 20 and the other version is targeting at an instance of another network element type.”).
Claim 14, Magnusson teaches he method of claim 11, further comprising:
performing, iteratively with the modified network intent, the comparing, the diagnosing, and the modifying for the subsequent instances (p. 113-114, “…[t]he modification may change the network element configuration such that the one or more activation conditions of the configuration profile are no longer fulfilled. In such a case the profile engine 34 will not alter or reset the parameter values of the previous object instance, but if the configuration profile is now active for a new object instance, the normal steps of activating the configuration profile for that object instance will be taken.” “In order to correct a configuration object instance that is violating an active configuration profile, the configuration profile must be re-activated on that instance by the operator.”).
Claim 15, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
providing an alert when the deviation is diagnosed (p. 89, “As an example, an enablement command will set the requested state to “enabled”, while a disablement command will set the requested state to “disabled”. As will be explained in more detail below, the actual state of a configuration profile group could also be “violated”.”).
Claim 17, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the modifying comprises:
outputting at least one of a diagnosis note, device status code, a network intent status code (p. 112, “the object instance does no longer conform to the configuration profile and the activation status of the configuration profile is updated to “active-but-violated” to reflect this situation.” Labeling the intent interpreted as an alert.), or a baseline intent.
Claim 18, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the modifying comprises updating the network intent and iteratively applying the updated network intent for the one or more baseline configurations (p. 113-114, “…[t]he modification may change the network element configuration such that the one or more activation conditions of the configuration profile are no longer fulfilled. In such a case the profile engine 34 will not alter or reset the parameter values of the previous object instance, but if the configuration profile is now active for a new object instance, the normal steps of activating the configuration profile for that object instance will be taken.” “In order to correct a configuration object instance that is violating an active configuration profile, the configuration profile must be re-activated on that instance by the operator.”).
Claim 19, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the one or more baseline configurations is saved as the network intent and the monitored variables comprise current data (p. 91, “In the active status of a configuration profile, the associated activation conditions are fulfilled and the associated parameter value set has been activated.”), which is compared with previous data (p. 91, “The active-but-violated status corresponds to the active status in which a monitoring has yielded that one or more of the parameter values defined in the configuration profile are violated.”).
Claim 21, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the monitoring of the variables comprises at least one of redundancy verifications, device hardening verifications, or compliance audits (p. 80, “The present disclosure additionally permits an efficient network-level configuration processing by the network management component 10 or another auditing component. The auditing can be performed by monitoring the state (e.g., the activation status or any other status parameter or attribute) of the configuration profiles or configuration profile groups on each network element.”).
Claim 22, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein monitoring variables for the network device comprises at lease least one of redundancy verifications, device hardening verifications, or compliance audits (p. 80, “The present disclosure additionally permits an efficient network-level configuration processing by the network management component 10 or another auditing component. The auditing can be performed by monitoring the state (e.g., the activation status or any other status parameter or attribute) of the configuration profiles or configuration profile groups on each network element.”).
Claim 23, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the executable code creates an alert when the design is violated (p. 91, “The active-but-violated status corresponds to the active status in which a monitoring has yielded that one or more of the parameter values defined in the configuration profile are violated.”).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Cyras et al., WO 2022/002379 A1 (hereafter referred to as Cyras).
A. Claims 7 and 16, Magnusson teaches the method of claims 1 and 11, as cited above. Magusson does not specifically teach further comprising: parsing, with a visual parser, the monitored variables, wherein the monitoring is based on the parsed variables. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cyras teaches parsing, with a visual parser (p. 16, lines 10-14; “the reasoning for selecting a proposed action can be traced via arguments supporting the proposal, and the reasons for and against can be contrasted with the reasons for and against other proposals, which can then for instance be parsed into text as an explanation. “ The proposed actions are equivalent to the intents.), the monitored variables, wherein the monitoring is based parsing of the monitored variables (p. 16, lines 11-17; “The Visualization node 310 in Figs 3 and 4 above may be tailored specifically to intent-driven decision making about proposed actions, reflecting the Arg Provider’s instantiation of QBAGs with KPIs and related measures and the Decision Maker’s use of semantics and properties.” The KPI are the values of the monitored variable). . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Magnusson to substitute visual parser from Cyras for the mapping of intentions from Magnusson to improve user experience. The motivation would have to visualize and present the intentions with graphical and/or textual representation for a human user for better understanding.
B. Regarding dependent claim 8, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 7, as cited above. Magnusson does not specifically teach wherein the visual parser parses the monitored variables with a text parser. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cyras teaches wherein the visual parser parses the monitored variables (p. 16, lines 11-17; “The Visualization node 310 in Figs 3 and 4 above may be tailored specifically to intent-driven decision making about proposed actions, reflecting the Arg Provider’s instantiation of QBAGs with KPIs and related measures and the Decision Maker’s use of semantics and properties.”) with a text parser (p. 16, lines 10-14; “the reasoning for selecting a proposed action can be traced via arguments supporting the proposal, and the reasons for and against can be contrasted with the reasons for and against other proposals, which can then for instance be parsed into text as an explanation. “ The proposed actions are equivalent to the intents.), a variable parser, a paragraph parser, or a table parser. For motivation for combination see claim 7 above.
C. Regarding dependent claim 9, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 7, as cited above. Magnusson does not specifically teach wherein the visual parser comprises a reuse parser that applies to other network devices other than the network device. Cyras teaches wherein the visual parser comprises a reuse parser (p. “…[C]omputational argumentation processes may provide a framework for extracting graphical, visual and textual explanations pertaining to the different proposed actions and provide reasons underlying the decision taken.” p. 16, “proposed actions”) that applies to other network devices other than the network device (p. 16, lines 11-17; “The Visualization node 310 in Figs 3 and 4 above may be tailored specifically to intent-driven decision making about proposed actions …” And “a feasibility parameter may comprise an indication of whether equipment or physical components in the telecommunications network (e.g. such as ports, or particular nodes) suitable for performing the proposed action are operational.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Magnusson to substitute reuse parser from Cyras for the mapping of intentions from Magnusson to perform network configurations. The motivation would have been to correlate and filter which network node would be acceptable for a particular network configuration and thereby prevent applying network configurations which are unfeasible.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnusson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Elliot et al., US 2015/0382212 A1 (hereafter referred to as Elliot).
A. Claim 20, Magnusson teaches the method of claim 11, as cited above. Magnusson does not specifically teach wherein the monitoring comprises an adaptive monitoring automation using a primary flash probe and a secondary flash probe. However, in the same field of endeavor, Elliot teaches the monitoring comprises an adaptive monitoring automation (p. 24, “enable the probe device 150 to efficiently perform Quality of Service (QoS) testing for mobile communication services.”) using a primary flash probe and a secondary flash probe (p. 23, “System 100 can include a group of probe devices 150 that are positioned at various areas of the venue for monitoring communication services accessible in these areas.” And p. 26, “the probe device 150 can provide a visual indicator, such as a single, externally-visible LED, that flashes or otherwise emits an indication in a specified manner to represent operations of the probe device…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Magnusson to substitute primary and secondary flash probe from Elliot for monitoring from Magnusson to improve test results by recovering following a failure of other probe devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights