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 .
Applicant Response to Office Action
2. The response filed on 7/7/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
3. Claim 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
4. Remarks, page 8, line 1, text maybe missing.
5. Remarks, page 8, line 19-21 does not relate to specific Office Action rejection.
6. Remarks, page 9, lines 1-3, Applicant is reminded that it is the claims and only the claims that defined the invention.
7. Remarks, page 9, lines 1-25, page 10 and page 11 are absent of a rebuttal to the specific sections of the prior art of Cote and related annotations made in the Office Action dated 7/7/2025. Applicant is further reminded that it is the claims and only the claims that define the invention and the subject matter contained in the specification remains in the specification unless specifically limited to within the claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cote et al (US Patent Application 2021/0028973) listed in the IDS dated 9/20/2022 hereinafter identified as Cote.
10. Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, Cote discloses a processing device and a memory device configured to store computer program having instructions that, when executed enable the processing device to: (¶ [0011], lines 1-5)
11. fetch configuration data associated with a Network Element (NE) to be monitored, and (¶ [0011], lines 4-8, Examiner's Notation (EN): monitoring is achieved by the obtaining of the information)
12. based on detection of a configuration difference whereby the configuration data changed with respect to previously stored configuration information, (¶ [0011], lines 8-12, EN: alarm information intrinsically has a basis or stored information to properly function) monitor the configuration data to determine if the configuration data conforms to predetermined compliance rules and practices ¶ [0011] lines 8-11, EN: predetermined compliance rules and policies are manifest by alarms), and
13. in response to determining that the configuration data is non-compliant, cause the one or more processing devices to at least one of (i) automatically perform one or more remediation actions on the configuration data to reach a compliant state, (¶ [0074], lines 1-11) or (ii) provide one or more remediation recommendations to a network operator,
14. wherein the compliance rules and policies are established based on defined criteria (¶ [0074], lines 4-11, EN: "good Quality of Service" defines criteria).
15. Regarding claims 2 and 12, Cote discloses fetching the configuration data executed in response to receiving a trigger. (¶ [0004], lines 11-16, EN: the trigger is the threshold received to set the alarm)
16. Regarding claims 3, 13, Cote discloses the trigger is one or more of a real-time trigger involving observing user behavior with respect to the NE to be monitored (¶ [0004], lines 11-16, EN: an alarm is a real-time trigger set by the related threshold and operating on a continuous basis), an on demand trigger in which the user requests a compliance check (¶ [0004, lines 11-16, EN: an alarm has the equivalent of a continuous trigger and therefore would anticipate an on-demand trigger for a compliance check), and a scheduled trigger in which compliance checks are performed at regularly scheduled times (¶ [0004], lines 11-16, EN: alarms provide continuous trigger (threshold) monitoring and therefore anticipate compliance checks performed at regularly scheduled times).
17. Regarding claims 4 and 14, Cote discloses in response to determining that the configuration data is non-compliant, the instructions further cause the one or more processing devices to automatically perform one or more processing devices to automatically perform one or more remediation actions on the configuration data to reach a compliant state (¶ [0074]).
18. Regarding claims 5 and 15, Cote discloses in response to determining that the configuration data is non-compliant, the instructions further cause the one or more processing devices to provide one or more recommendations to a network operator regarding remediation actions (¶ [0154]), The recommendations being based on analysis of configuration data differences with respect to compliance rules and policies rather than performance monitoring metrics or alarms (¶ {0075, lines 1-4, EN: object recognition algorithms are based on two dimensional images which would be equivalent to "predetermined compliance rules").
19. Regarding claims 6 and 17, Cote discloses the instructions further enable one or more processing devices to utilize Machine Learning (ML) techniques to train a ML model to establish or modify the predetermined compliance rules and policies (¶ [0074])
20. Regarding claims 7 and 18, Cote discloses the instructions further enable the one or more processing devices to utilize ML techniques to perform one or more functions including monitoring the configuration data of multiple NEs, synchronizing configuration files between two or more of the multiple Nes, calculating the configuration difference, performing compliance checks, performing remediation actions for non-compliance Nes, and providing remediation recommendations to a user (¶ [0074], [0075]), wherein the ML techniques are trained using historical configuration data and compliance event information instead of performance monitoring metrics or alarms (¶ {0075, lines 1-4,)
21. Regarding claims 8 and 19, the instructions further enable the one or more processing devices to establish compliance rules and policies for a plurality of NEs in a network (¶ [0058] and define an intent to perform compliance monitoring with respect to the compliance rules and policies (¶ [[0002]).
22 Regarding claims 9 and 20, the configuration date does not conform to predetermined compliance rules and policies, the instructions further enable the one or more processing devices to determine type and severity of non-compliance (¶ [0154], EN: "explain results of root-cause analysis" identifies type and severity of non-compliance).
23 Regarding claim 10, the instructions further enable the one or more processing devices to store configuration information and/or compliance information in a database (¶ [0107])
Conclusion
24 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
25 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P. Hirl whose telephone number is (571) 272-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 am to 3:30 pm, ET.
26 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.
27 If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy C. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-2238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
28 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 P HIRL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights