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 .
Priority
Priority is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on 6/16/2025 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended, and claims 16-19 were added. Claims 1-19 are pending.
The previous rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 USC 103 under Ennis et al in view of Carpenter, claims 4 and 11 under 35 USC 103 under Ennis in view of Carpenter and Chitalia et al, and claims 6 and 13 under 35 USC 103 under Ennis et al in view of Carpenter and Urias et al have been withdrawn as necessitated by amendment, but new rejections to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 USC 103 under Ennis et al in view of Almansa-Valverde et al, claims 4 and 11 under 35 USC 103 under Ennis in view of Almansa-Valverde et al and Chitalia et al, claims 6 and 13 under 35 USC 103 under Ennis et al in view of Almansa-Valverde et al and Urias et al, and claims 16-19 under 35 USC 103 under Ennis et al in view of Almansa-Valverde et al and Astrom et al have been made.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/15/2022 were accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ennis et al (US 20110004914 A1; filed 7/1/2009) in view of Almansa-Valverde et al (US20210392715A1; filed 10/24/2018).
With regards to claim 1, Ennis et al discloses 1. A method of visual presentation of device compliance data (Ennis et al, Fig. 3-5: show displayed compliance data) enabling intuitive identification of network requirement non-compliance and targeted response thereto, the method comprising:
receiving device data gathered from a plurality of devices communicably connected to a network, the device data representing values of features and resulting activity of the devices (Ennis et al, paragraph 3: “a data collection module that collects configuration and operational information from devices in a computer network;” paragraph 16: “An issue can relate to the state of a device's configuration determined from collected configuration information, from a device's operating state determined from collected operational information (e.g., performance statistics, utilization levels, etc.), or from both”);
in a data analytics system executing on a processor, analyzing the device data to identify devices failing to comply with each network requirement of a predetermined set of network requirements, to thereby generate compliance analysis results (Ennis et al, paragraph 7: “The network analysis system for identifying changes, operational issues, and policy compliance information and for controlling the display device to display the visual data presentations;” regarding the network requirements, paragraph 21 describes policy: “term “policy” refers to a collection of rules that the network and network devices are required or expected to follow… These rules may come from a variety of sources such as from: an enterprise's internal “best practices” and requirements”);
selectively filtering the compliance analysis results according to at least one selected device feature of a plurality of predetermined device features, to thereby generate filtered analysis results (Ennis et al, paragraph 39: “Optionally, each of the visual data presentations can be filtered according to specific types, classes, or categories of changes, issues, and policy rules to facilitate further causal analysis;” Alternatively the filtering could be interpreted as the grouping of devices as described in paragraph 37: “individual device could be included in a number of different groups, depending on the type of device, its configuration, its placement within the topology of the network or connections with other devices, or its role in the network”) representing a filtered subset of the plurality of devices (Ennis et al, paragraphs 11-12: “Fig.” 3/4/5 “is a screen shot of a timeline visualization of… policy compliance for a selected group of devices in a network” The selected group of devices is the subset);
in a graphic user interface application executing on a processor, generating at least one graphical chart indicating an extent of non-compliance (Ennis et al, paragraph 49: “policy compliance graph;” Fig 3: Policy compliance graph is shown; Fig. 4: the representation of devices and their issues is a form of graphical chart), among the filtered subset of the plurality of devices, with a selected subset of the network requirements, according at least in part to the filtered analysis results (Ennis et al, paragraph 49: “Like the change and issue graphs, the data being presented in the policy compliance graph can be filtered to show only selected types or categories of policy rules, and the types of policy rules being represented can be coordinated with the types of changes and issues being represented in their respective graphs to provide meaningful information about the relationship between the subsets of changes, issues, and policy compliance information being depicted”);
presenting the graphical chart in a graphic user interface rendered on a display (Ennis et al, abstract: “A display device displays the visual data presentation;” See previously cited Fig. 3 and its charts, fig. 4 shows a graph with indicators of errors/warnings, paragraphs 40, 48-49); and
executing a preset automated response based at least in part on identification of devices performing non-compliant activity within the network (Ennis et al, paragraph 5: “A policy compliance indicator (e.g., another icon) is displayed with the device indicator of each device that is not in compliance with configuration policy;” the indicator icon is interpreted as the preset automated response because it is displayed for the devices that are not in compliance; the response can alternately be interpreted as the automatic operations which correct network issues as cited in the rejection to claim 2).
Ennis et al does not disclose wherein executing the preset automated response comprises shifting a device causing the non-compliant activity to a different connection.
However, Almansa-Valverde et al teaches wherein executing the preset automated response comprises shifting a device causing the non-compliant activity to a different connection (Almansa-Valverde et al, paragraph 9: “method and apparatus for identifying UEs non-compliant with modified CRS operation in a wireless communication network;” paragraph 7: “These filters are used to keep track on whether there are non-compliant UEs connected to a cell. CRS blanking will be disabled in the cell if a non-compliant UE is connected;” Note: the disabling of CRS blanking is interpreted as a change in connection because the connection type is no longer using the specific connection type when the device (UE) is filtered as being non-compliant with the CRS blanking connection. Further, while this description is part of the description of prior art, the invention described is merely for detecting which devices should be filtered (paragraph 7: “automatically update the filters to identify non-compliant UEs”)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Ennis et al and Almansa-Valverde et al such that the invention automatically responded to network compliance issues with a change in the connection. This would enable the system to respond and fix when the devices are non-compliant with the connection type (Almansa-Valverde et al, paragraph 5: “modifications in CRS transmission pattern not considered by 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) may result in incompatibilities with UEs if these have conflicting implementations”).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Ennis et al discloses wherein the executing a preset automated response is configured to (Ennis et al, Fig. 4-5: the policy compliance is shown in both charts as X’s or check marks; the display of the X or check mark is the automated response; Ennis et al, paragraph 5: “A policy compliance indicator (e.g., another icon) is displayed with the device indicator of each device that is not in compliance with configuration policy”) reduce the non-compliant activity of the identified devices (Ennis et al, Paragraph 17: "The system of the present invention allows the network operator or administrator to observe that corrective changes caused an issue to be eliminated." Paragraph 15: "Changes… may result from an automatic operation that occurs within the network (e.g., automatic or scheduled downloading and installing of software or auto-configuration operations)." The corrective changes that eliminate the network issues may be automatically performed, and are interpreted as a preset automated response).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Ennis et al discloses wherein the received device data is in the form of a periodic compilation of data (Ennis et al, paragraph 42: “As shown in FIG. 3, the trend line can be updated less frequently than every time period. In this case, the trend line is updated one a day. However, the trend line could be updated more frequently (e.g., every hour).” Paragraphs 5, 38, 43, and 53 also mention the measured time periods).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Ennis et al discloses wherein the plurality of predetermined device features includes a region in which the device is located (Ennis et al, Paragraph 37: "It is possible that an individual device could be included in a number of different groups, depending on… its placement within the topology of the network…").
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Ennis et al discloses wherein the extent of non-compliance is presented in a plurality of graphical charts selectively arranged within the graphic user interface, each of the plurality of graphical charts rendered according to a chart style selected from a set of predesigned chart styles (Ennis et al, Fig. 3-5: multiple charts are shown which indicate network compliance; Note: the claim does not require that the charts are displayed simultaneously, nor does it require how the selecting is performed).
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ennis et al in view of Almansa-Valverde et al, and further in view of Chitalia et al (US 20210006473 A1; filed 9/14/2020).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Ennis et al and Almansa-Valverde et al do not disclose wherein the received device data is in the form of a real-time data stream.
However, Chitalia et al teaches wherein the received device data is in the form of a real-time data stream (Chitalia, paragraph 5: “a visual representation of the connectivity and/or the communication latencies between workloads that may communicate via the underlay computer network may be determined and graphically displayed in real-time or near real-time for a computer network being monitored”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Ennis et al, Almansa-Valverde et al and Chitalia et al such that the data is received in real-time. This would have enabled the invention to display any network problems to a user faster (Chitalia et al, paragraph 6: “faster troubleshooting of network problems related connectivity and/or latency issues related to monitored computer networks of any size”).
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ennis et al in view of Almansa-Valverde et al, and further in view of Urias et al (US 20210152590 A1; filed 11/18/2020).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Ennis et al and Almansa-Valverde et al do not disclose wherein the plurality of predetermined device features includes a domain to which the device is connected.
However, Urias et al teaches wherein the plurality of predetermined device features includes a domain to which the device is connected (Urias et al, paragraph 33: “Network data 232 might comprise, e.g., operational configurations 234, organizationally unique identifier (OUI) data 236, network topology data 238, network traffic classification 240, network mapping data 242, asset inventory databases 244, employee and personnel databases 246, network assessment data 248, domain name system (DNS) data 250, and URL data 252.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Ennis et al, Almansa-Valverde et al, and Urias et al such that the device information comprises information regarding the connected domains. This would have provided additional information regarding the devices (Urias et al, paragraph 33: “Data sources 230 can provide tools that discover network topology and connectivity and determine device specification, configuration data, network device, and end-point device information.”).
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 6 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ennis et al in view of Almansa-Valverde et al, and further in view of Åström et al (referred to as Astrom et al) (US20190342833A1; filed 5/9/2019).
With regards to claim 16, which depends on claim 1, Ennis et al and Almansa-Valverde et al do not disclose wherein the selected subset of network requirements comprises a requirement to comply with a 5G standard feature.
However, Astrom et al teaches wherein the selected subset of network requirements comprises a requirement to comply with a 5G standard feature (Astrom et al, paragraph 62: “In one embodiment, the core network node 22 is… a network node that implements an access and mobility function (AMF) (e.g., where the network 10 is a New Radio or 5G network).” Paragraph 146: “In Step 4, when the eNB receives a paging message for the UE, the eNB detects the WUR capability (e.g. appended to the UE radio paging capabilities in the paging message from MME to eNB) and determines if it complies with the configured eDRX/DRX configuration for the eNB/UE. The eNB schedules the UE according to the UE's WUR capabilities”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Ennis et al, Almansa-Valverde et al, and Astrom et al such that the compliance determinations were for 5G features. This would have enabled the invention to be implemented for common communication standards (Astrom et al, paragraph 196: “a WD configured for communication in accordance with one or more communication standards promulgated by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), such as 3GPP's GSM, UMTS, LTE, and/or 5G standards”).
With regards to claim 17, which depends on claim 16, Ennis et al and Almansa-Valverde et al do not disclose wherein the 5G standard feature is a DRX cycle type.
However, Astrom et al teaches wherein the 5G standard feature is a DRX cycle type (Astrom et al, paragraph 146: “In Step 4, when the eNB receives a paging message for the UE, the eNB detects the WUR capability (e.g. appended to the UE radio paging capabilities in the paging message from MME to eNB) and determines if it complies with the configured eDRX/DRX configuration for the eNB/UE”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Ennis et al, Almansa-Valverde et al, and Astrom et al such that the compliance determinations were for 5G features such as a DRX cycle configuration. This would have enabled the invention to be implemented for common communication standards (Astrom et al, paragraph 196: “a WD configured for communication in accordance with one or more communication standards promulgated by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), such as 3GPP's GSM, UMTS, LTE, and/or 5G standards”).
With regards to claim 18, which depends on claim 1, Ennis et al discloses wherein the selected subset of network requirements comprises a requirement (Ennis et al, paragraph 7: “The network analysis system for identifying changes, operational issues, and policy compliance information and for controlling the display device to display the visual data presentations;” regarding the network requirements, paragraph 21 describes policy: “term “policy” refers to a collection of rules that the network and network devices are required or expected to follow… These rules may come from a variety of sources such as from: an enterprise's internal “best practices” and requirements”)… and the GUI displays a vendor of the device causing the non-compliant activity (Ennis et al, paragraph 57: “The table is displayed in a display window, with a header line that includes a number of column headers identifying the devices in the selected group and attributes of the devices, including: … the vendor”).
However, Ennis et al does not disclose a requirement to comply with a 5G standard feature.
Astrom et al teaches a requirement to comply with a 5G standard feature (Astrom et al, paragraph 62: “In one embodiment, the core network node 22 is… a network node that implements an access and mobility function (AMF) (e.g., where the network 10 is a New Radio or 5G network).” Paragraph 146: “In Step 4, when the eNB receives a paging message for the UE, the eNB detects the WUR capability (e.g. appended to the UE radio paging capabilities in the paging message from MME to eNB) and determines if it complies with the configured eDRX/DRX configuration for the eNB/UE. The eNB schedules the UE according to the UE's WUR capabilities”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Ennis et al, Almansa-Valverde et al, and Astrom et al such that the compliance determinations were for 5G features. This would have enabled the invention to be implemented for common communication standards (Astrom et al, paragraph 196: “a WD configured for communication in accordance with one or more communication standards promulgated by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), such as 3GPP's GSM, UMTS, LTE, and/or 5G standards”).
With regards to claim 19, which depends on claim 18, Ennis et al discloses determining, before the shifting of the device, that a plurality of devices manufactured by the vendor only comply with… (Ennis et al, paragraph 57: “An example of a table representation (or simply “table view”) of changes, issues, and policy compliance information is shown in FIG. 5. The table is displayed in a display window, with a header line that includes a number of column headers identifying the devices in the selected group and attributes of the devices, including: the IP address, the device name, the device type, the vendor, and the model number”).
However, Ennis et al does not disclose devices… only comply with LTE.
Astrom et al teaches devices… comply with LTE (Astrom et al, paragraph 62: “In one embodiment, the core network node 22 is a mobility management entity (MME) (e.g., where the network 10 is a Long Term Evolution, LTE, network)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Ennis et al, Almansa-Valverde et al, and Astrom et al such that the compliance determinations were for LTE compliance. This would have enabled the invention to be implemented for common communication standards (Astrom et al, paragraph 196: “a WD configured for communication in accordance with one or more communication standards promulgated by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), such as 3GPP's GSM, UMTS, LTE, and/or 5G standards”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2025 regarding the amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15, and claims dependent on them, with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejection over Ennis et al and Carpenter, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner agrees with applicant that the amendment is not disclosed by any of the previously cited art, because the amendment to claim 1 now requires the limitation regarding shifting the device to a different connection. However, upon additional search, examiner has added new rejections further in view of Almansa-Valverde et al. Almansa-Valverde et al teaches changing a connection when detected devices are non-compliant. Thus the argument is moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2025 regarding the new claims (16-19), have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner agrees with applicant that the amendment is not disclosed by any of the previously cited art, because the new claims include limitations regarding 5G features, DRX cycles, and LTE compliance. None of these features are taught by Ennis et al nor Carpenter. However, upon additional search, examiner has added new rejections further in view of Astrom et al. Astrom et al teaches determining compliance for systems that use 5G, LTE, and DRX cycles. Thus the argument is moot.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached on 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2173
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178