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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to RCE filed on 09/05/2025. In this RCE, claims 1, 11 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 11 and 20 being independent.
Priority
This application is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/US2022/049481, filed November 10, 2022.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Rejections have been withdrawn in view of remarks filed on 09/05/2025 on pages 8-10. Also, additional element notifying a user associated with the network issue shows practical application for judicial exception of correlating the detected network issue. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues in substance that:
[Th]e cited references fail to disclose or suggest "correlating the detected network issue with one or more known network incidents to identify a relation between the network issue and the one or more known network incidents using a multi-step matching process based on at least one from among a direct match with the one or more known network incidents, a type of impact associated with the one or more known network incidents, and a secondary effect of the one or more known network incidents," as claimed in claim 1 (from remarks pg. 12-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Vangapalli teaches this limitation. For instance, figure 5A and paragraphs 114-117 of Vangapalli teach multiple comparison/ matching steps are performed in order to compare and correlate characteristics of the data received from the different sources for an event and/or failure and based on the comparison/ matching steps to determine association/ matching/ relation between network incidents. Figure 5A of Vangapallin shows multiple comparison/ matching steps are performed: comparing failure category (correspond to a type of impact associated with the one or more known network incidents), comparing username (correspond to a direct match with the one or more known network incidents). Moreover, Vangapallin also indicates that any order and any type of characteristics can be utilized for comparing (Vangapallin para. [116]). Therefore, Vangapalli teaches correlating the detected network issue with one or more known network incidents to identify a relation between the network issue and the one or more known network incidents using a multi-step matching process based on at least one from among a direct match with the one or more known network incidents, a type of impact associated with the one or more known network incidents, and a secondary effect of the one or more known network incidents," as claimed in claim 1.
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 1-4, 10-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vangapalli et al. et al. (US 2022/0182278, Pub. Date: Jun. 9, 2022).
As per claim 1, Vangapalli discloses a method of managing incidents within a network (Vangapalli para. [0023], Systems and methods for determining a cause of a failure of a connection to an application or computing device is provided herein), the method comprising:
automatically detecting a network issue (Vangapalli fig. 5A and para. [0113], The device 370 can identify a failure 324 or event 318 identified or included in the data 312. The failure 324 and/or event 318 can include any form of error or issue associated with establishing or maintaining a connection 342 or session 344 or a communications system error between two entities) based on a user service issue and received one or more network performance metrics by performing diagnostic testing of the network (Vangapalli para. [0086], The monitoring service 350 can monitor, measure, collect, and/or analyze [correspond to performing diagnostic testing] data 312 from end points 302, hosted applications 322 and/or computing devices 320; Vangapalli [0093], Data 312 can include data, metrics, values, and/or identifying information for one or more failures 324 and/or events 318 occurring in network 340);
correlating the detected network issue with one or more known network incidents (Vangapalli fig. 5A and para. [0114], The device 370 can compare and correlate characteristics 314 of the data 312 received from the different sources for an event 318 and/or failure 324) to identify a relation between the network issue and the one or more known network incidents (Vangapalli para. [0115], The device 370 can compare one or more characteristics 314 (e.g., metrics, attributes, values) of the data 312 from different sources to identify associations 326, including matches [relation], between the characteristics 314. In embodiments, the device 370 can compare the characteristics one at a time and/or in a determined order to determine if the data 312 from the first source corresponds to the same event 318 or similar event 318 (e.g., session failure, session launch failure) as the data 312 from the second source) using a multi-step matching process (Vangapalli fig. 5A, correlating network issues using a multi-step matching process (blocks 508-510); Vangapalli para. [0115], the associations 326 can include matches of characteristics 314 including, but not limited to, the same failure category, same username, same failure code and/or any type of characteristics 314 of the data 312 that is the same) based on at least one from among a direct match with the one or more known network incidents (Vangapalli fig. 5A, comparing/ matching username between the first source and second source at 508), a type of impact associated with the one or more known network incidents (Vangapalli fig. 5A and para. [0117], The device 370 can determine if an association 326 exists between the failure category of the data 312 from the client application 304 and the failure category of the data 312 from the monitoring service 350. The failure category characteristic 314 can include, but is not limited to, client connection error, client socket error, firewall setting issue at client, application or gateway, invalid ticket or certificate; Vangapalli para. [0116], The order the characteristics 314 are compared or mapped can vary and be determined based in part on the characteristics 314 included with the data 312 and/or a type of failure 324 and/or event 318), and a secondary effect of the one or more known network incidents;
classifying the network issue within a database based on the correlation (Vangapalli para. [0006], determining, by the device, a type of connection that caused the failure; Vangapalli fig. 5B, types of connections that caused the failure include external or internal connection from Gateway to Application at 516-518, external or internal connection from End Point to Application at 522-524 and updating Event Database after determining the failure at 530. [In other words, the device determining/classifying the failure as failure at external or internal connection from Gateway to Application, or failure at external or internal connection from End Point to Application]); and
notifying a user associated with the network issue about at least a result of the classifying (Vangapalli para. [0031], the mapping between the data sets and mappings between the characteristics can be graphed or provided through an interface (e.g., graphical user interface) of a device. The mappings can be generated and displayed through the interface for a user or admin to receive notifications including actions or recommendations to correct failures, provide warnings for potential failures and/or illustrate where failures are occurring in a network [result of the classifying] or for a user) using bi-directional communication (Vangapalli para. [0131], the device 370 can generate and provide a notification to a client device 102 (e.g., for user), a gateway device 330 (e.g., for an administrator, network technicians) and/or a hosted computing device 320 (e.g., for an administrator, network technicians); Vangapalli para. [0075], A device 370 can collect or receive the data 312 associated with the events 318 and failures 324 from different sources, including but not limited to, end points 302, client applications 304, hosted applications 322, computing devices 320. [These indicate that communication between the device 370 and user (end points 302)/admin (device 320) is bi-directional communication]).
As per claim 2, Vangapalli discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, Vangapalli also discloses wherein the user service issue is based on at least one: call or service failure (Vangapalli para. [0113], The failure 324 and/or event 318 can include any form of error or issue associated with establishing or maintaining a connection 342 or session 344 or a communications system error between two entities … the failure 324 and/or event 318 can include an error accessing remote application, a virtual machine (e.g., virtual desktop), hosted session, a voice over internet protocol (VOIP) session or call), call or service quality, or reduced network coverage.
As per claim 3, Vangapalli discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, Vangapalli also discloses further comprising:
filtering the correlated network issue with the one or more known network incidents based on one or more conditions (Vangapalli fig. 5A, filtering network issues by comparing/matching [condition] characteristics (Failure Category, Username) at 508: if Yes: compare time value at 510, if No: ignore Data at 526 and para. [0115], the device 370 can compare the characteristics one at a time and/or in a determined order to determine if the data 312 from the first source corresponds to the same event 318 or similar event 318 (e.g., session failure, session launch failure) as the data 312 from the second source).
As per claim 4, Vangapalli discloses the method according to claim 3, as set forth above, Vangapalli also discloses further comprising:
performing root cause analysis (RCA) based on the step of filtering the correlated network issue with the one or more known network incidents (Vangapalli fig. 5B: performing root cause analysis at 516-524 after comparing characteristics and time values and para. [0130], The device 370 can determine, responsive to the mapping 310 indicating an association 326 between at least one characteristic 314 of the data 312 from the client application 304 and the data 312 from the monitoring, a cause 326 of the failure 324 of the session 344 and/or connection 342 with the hosted application 322).
As per claim 10, Vangapalli discloses the method according to claim 4, as set forth above, Vangapalli also discloses further comprising:
querying one or more databases for a resolution based on the identified, correlated, and filtered network issue (Vangapalli para. [0111], determining a cause for the failure for an internal connection (524) … generating a recommendation or action (528); Vangapalli para. [0140], the device 370 can access a visualization service 434 to receive or request an action 360 or recommendation 362 for an identified cause 316 of a failure 324 … The visualization service 434 can store and maintain previous actions 360 (e.g., failure corrections) applied in response to one or more previous events 318 and/or failures 324).
Per claims 11-14, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-4 respectively. As such, claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1-4 respectively. Vangapalli also discloses an apparatus (Vangapalli fig. 3, Device 370) for managing incidents within a network, comprising: a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage (Vangapalli para. [0011], The non-transitory computer readable medium can include instructions that, when executed by the processor of a device, cause the processor to identify a failure of a session with an application of a plurality of applications hosted by a computing device of a plurality of computing devices).
Per claim 20, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1. As such, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Vangapalli also discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions for managing incidents within a network by an apparatus (Vangapalli para. [0011], The non-transitory computer readable medium can include instructions that, when executed by the processor of a device, cause the processor to identify a failure of a session with an application of a plurality of applications hosted by a computing device of a plurality of computing devices).
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 of this title, 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 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangapalli et al. et al. (US 2022/0182278, Pub. Date: Jun. 9, 2022), in view of Jayaram (US 2024/0129760, Filed: Oct. 13, 2022).
As per claim 5, Vangapalli discloses the method according to claim 4, as set forth above, Vangapalli does not explicitly further comprising:
generating a support ticket based on the performed RCA.
Jayaram teaches:
generating a support ticket based on the performed RCA (Jayaram para. [0043], The automatic system 330 is trained to receive the correlation signature and predict the root cause for the correlation signature. Once the automatic system 330 predicts the root cause, the automatic system can create a ticket including the predicted root cause. The ticket can further indicate which automatic actions need to be initiated to resolve the predicted root cause. The automatic action can include restarting a component, reconfiguring the component, reinstalling a software associated with the component, etc.).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Vangapalli in view of Jayaram for generating a support ticket based on the performed RCA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of keeping track of network issues (see Jayaram Fig. 5B).
As per claim 6, Vangapalli-Jayaram discloses the method according to claim 5, as set forth above, Vangapalli-Jayaram also discloses further comprising:
identifying a resolution with respect to the generated support ticket (Jayaram para. [0043], The automatic system 330 is trained to receive the correlation signature and predict the root cause for the correlation signature. Once the automatic system 330 predicts the root cause, the automatic system can create a ticket including the predicted root cause. The ticket can further indicate which automatic actions need to be initiated to resolve the predicted root cause. The automatic action can include restarting a component, reconfiguring the component, reinstalling a software associated with the component, etc.); and
verifying the resolution (Vangapalli para. [0142], The device 370 can map or show the performance of an end point 302, gateway device 330, hosted application 322 and/or computing device 320 after an action 360 has been applied or implemented to determine if the action 360 worked and/or an effectiveness of the action 360 (e.g., did action 360 correct a failure 324)).
Similar rationale in claim 5 is applied.
Per claims 15-16, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 5-6 respectively. As such, claims 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5-6 respectively.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangapalli et al. et al. (US 2022/0182278, Pub. Date: Jun. 9, 2022), in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0027331, Pub. Date: Jan. 27, 2022).
As per claim 7, Vangapalli-Jayaram discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, Vangapalli also discloses further comprising:
performing root cause analysis (RCA) to identify any issue unrelated to the one or more known network incidents (Vangapalli fig. 5A, identifying unrelated by comparing characteristic at 508: if Yes: compare time value at 510, if No: ignore Data at 526 and para. [0118], If no association 326 is determined between the failure category of the data 312 from the client application 304 and the failure category of the data 312 from the monitoring service 350 or the failure categories do not match, the method 500 can move to (524) to ignore the event 318 associated with the data 312.).
Vangapalli does not explicitly disclose:
performing root cause analysis (RCA) based on artificial intelligence.
Hwang teaches:
performing root cause analysis (RCA) based on artificial intelligence (Hwang para. [0049], A clustering algorithm can be used to correlate common issues and/or issues with entities sharing similar connections with certain applications; Hwang para. [0005], machine learning is utilized to determine the correlated events about the issue across a plurality of domains based on a history data or a synthetic data).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Vangapalli in view of Hwang to incorporate artificial intelligence to performing root cause analysis (RCA) in order to identify any issue unrelated to the one or more known network incidents.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of identifying and resolving issues quickly.
Per claim 17, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 7. As such, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangapalli et al. et al. (US 2022/0182278, Pub. Date: Jun. 9, 2022).
As per claim 8, Vangapalli discloses the method according to claim 3, as set forth above, Vangapalli also discloses wherein the step of correlating the detected network issue with the one or more known network incidents to identify a relation between the network issue and the one or more known network incidents (Vangapalli para. [0115], The device 370 can compare one or more characteristics 314 (e.g., metrics, attributes, values) of the data 312 from different sources to identify associations 326, including matches, between the characteristics 314. In embodiments, the device 370 can compare the characteristics one at a time and/or in a determined order to determine if the data 312 from the first source corresponds to the same event 318 or similar event 318 (e.g., session failure, session launch failure) as the data 312 from the second source) further comprises:
comparing a time of occurrence between the user service issue and the one or more known network incidents to determine a first match (Vangapalli fig. 5A and para. [0033], The device can compare time values (e.g., failure time, event time) of the data sets to determine if the events correspond to the same or similar events); and
comparing a network impact type between the user service issue and the one or more known network incidents to determine a second match (Vangapalli fig. 5A and para. [0117], The device 370 can determine if an association 326 exists between the failure category of the data 312 from the client application 304 and the failure category of the data 312 from the monitoring service 350. The failure category characteristic 314 can include, but is not limited to, client connection error, client socket error, firewall setting issue at client, application or gateway, invalid ticket or certificate; Vangapalli fig. 5A and para. [0143], the processes described herein are not limited to the specific processing order described herein and, rather, process blocks may be re-ordered, combined, removed, or performed in parallel or in serial, as necessary, to achieve the results set forth herein).
Vangapalli discloses performing step A (comparing a time of occurrence between the user service issue and the one or more known network incidents to determine a first match) and step B (comparing a network impact type between the user service issue and the one or more known network incidents to determine a second match). However, there are only a finite number of orders that these steps can perform: A then B, A and B at the same time, or B then A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to try these alternatives in an attempt to determine an effective way to identify a relation between the network issue and the one or more known network incidents.
Per claim 18, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 8. As such, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangapalli et al. et al. (US 2022/0182278, Pub. Date: Jun. 9, 2022), in view of Singh et al. (US 2020/0128446, Pub. Date: Apr. 23, 2020)
As per claim 9, Vangapalli discloses the method according to claim 4, as set forth above, Vangapalli also discloses the step of performing RCA based on the step of filtering the correlated detected network issue with the one or more known network incidents (Vangapalli fig. 5B: performing root cause analysis at 516-524 after comparing characteristics and time values and para. [0130], The device 370 can determine, responsive to the mapping 310 indicating an association 326 between at least one characteristic 314 of the data 312 from the client application 304 and the data 312 from the monitoring, a cause 326 of the failure 324 of the session 344 and/or connection 342 with the hosted application 322).
Vangapalli does not explicitly disclose:
determining at least one of: serving cell coverage, serving cell quality, neighboring cell coverage, handover performance, or network media type.
Singh teaches:
determining at least one of: serving cell coverage (Singh para. [0009], The network analysis platform can also perform RCA on serving cells with poor coverage. The root cause can identify a serving cell that does not have the correct transmit power or tilt configuration; Singh para. [0038], The root cause can be communicated to the GUI. At stage 270, the GUI can identify the base station as having coverage degradation; Singh para. [0005], A network analysis platform can detect a session suffering from poor wireless coverage at a network cell, such as a base station), serving cell quality, neighboring cell coverage, handover performance, or network media type.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Vangapalli in view of Singh to incorporate determining serving cell coverage, serving cell quality, neighboring cell coverage, handover performance, or network media type in order to correlate detected network issue with the one or more known network incidents.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of identifying changes need to be made to fix the poor coverage (see Singh para. [0038])
Per claim 19, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 9. As such, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hobbs et al. (US 10498588) Systems And Methods For Managing Network Health;
Kakadia et al. (US 20170104651) Systems And Methods For Maintaining Network Service Levels;
Kannan et al. (US 20090028053) Root-Cause Approach To Problem Diagnosis In Data Networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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.
/VINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453