DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the RCE filed on January 30th 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the claims have been amended to incorporate the allowable subject matter of claim 2 (pg. 12). This is factually incorrect. Claim 2 remains pending. Only a small portion of the features from claim 2 were incorporated into claim 1 (see advisory action dated 1/15/26). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. However, based on the amendment, the previous rejection is withdrawn. Based on the amendment, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Cameron et al. US 2018/0032306 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 recite the limitation "the plurality of data category identifiers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummins et al. US 5,963,943 in view of Asba et al. US 2020/0236006 A1 and Cameron et al. US 2018/0032306 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Cummins discloses: long term storage of network performance data for later retrieval, the method comprising by at least one processor, for at least one testing cycle for a network (abstract, Fig. 1):
obtaining a plurality of performance data files corresponding to the at least one testing cycle, wherein each of the plurality of performance data files comprises data describing a network performance of the network, and wherein the plurality of performance data files comprises at least a first data file of a first format and a second data file of a second format different from the first format (network data parser receives performance data files in different formats – see Figs. 3-4, col. 6 ln. 50 – col. 7 ln. 23);
reformatting each of the plurality of performance data files according to a predetermined uniform file format and a predefined set of uniform category identifiers; generating a plurality of uniform data files based on the reformatting (reformat into uniform format ODB-DBMS – see Fig. 5, col. 9 ln. 1-10; system also uses identifiers for the type of data, these are equivalent to the “category identifiers”, see Fig. 9, col. 11 ln. 1-8); and
storing the plurality of uniform data files within a query database in a memory (store reformatted data – col. 9 ln. 11-16, Fig. 5; also, see abstract and Figs. 1-3).
Cummins does not explicitly disclose wherein the predefined set of uniform category identifiers indicates one or more relevant categories for an analysis of the network performance, and wherein the reformatting comprises filtering the data within each of the plurality of performance data files based on the predefined set of uniform category identifiers. But this is taught by Asba as KPI data that reflects network performance, wherein KPI are descriptions of data (e.g. identifiers that indicate relevant categories – see paragraphs 2, 4, 6). Asba also teaches filtering based on the KPI/category identifiers (filter view of data based on KPI and user request – abstract, Fig. 12, paragraphs 8, 115, 118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cummins with the KPI data filtering taught by Asba for the purpose of analyzing network performance data. Asba teaches KPI data can be quite large and complex (paragraph 7), so there is a need for graphical interface tools to provide organized and filtered information (i.e. visualizations) in order to understand complex relationships (see paragraphs 7-8 and 114-120).
The combination of Cummins and Asba does not explicitly disclose wherein the reformatting comprises increasing a counter value based on a uniform category identifier of the predefined set of uniform category identifiers and based on a data category identifier of the plurality of data category identifiers of the performance data file. But it is well-known in the art to track occurrences of data via the use of a counter. This is taught by Cameron as incrementing a counter value for each data that matches a category identifier (i.e. when a token or word matches a predefined category identifier then counters for those are incremented – see paragraph 220). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Cummins and Asba with the counter value taught by Cameron for the purpose of tracking and managing large data sets. Cameron suggests that by using the counter values, statistical values can be determined which allows relative data to be generated or identified (paragraphs 30 and 226).
Regarding claim 5, Cummins discloses validating each of the plurality of uniform data files, each of the plurality of uniform data files being partitioned during validation according to a predefined category identifier threshold (files are validated by comparing the data to rules and returning an error – see col. 8 ln. 54-67, Fig. 5; messages are treated individually – see Fig. 5; thus they are “partitioned” during validation).
Regarding claim 6, Cummins discloses storing at least one configuration data file for each of a plurality of network cells, wherein a frequency of storage of configuration data files is less than a frequency of testing cycles (real-time topology system receives “daily” updates – col. 6 ln. 19-22; these messages are equivalent to “configuration data” for the network because they describe the topology and are “daily” which is less than the testing frequency of “near-real-time” see col. 2 ln. 23-31).
Regarding claims 11 and 15-16, they are system claims that correspond to the method of claims 1 and 5-6 respectively. Therefore, they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 17 and 19-20, they are non-transitory medium claims that correspond to the method of claims 1 and 5-6 respectively. Therefore, they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 12-14 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see previous office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winteregg et al. US 2011/0191394 A1 discloses a system for taking log files in different formats and normalizing them into a uniform format (abstract, Figs. 1-2).
Plevyak et al. US 8,682,864 B1 discloses it is well-known in the art to use counters for data items associated with a category and increasing the values of counters (abstract, Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458