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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 07/07/23, including preliminary amendments filed on 07/07/23, has been entered.
Claims 26-45 are pending.
Claims 1-25 have been canceled.
Claims 26-45 have been added.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 26-28, 32, 26-28, 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 26, 28-29, 30-32, 36, 38-39, 40-42 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11706115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is merely a broader version of the ‘115 claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 26, 29, 31 and 32-39, 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kant (US 20170048109 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Kant discloses a method for analyzing and remediating network incidents [fig. 4, 6], the method comprising:
executing performance calculations on collected network data to compute performance metrics (Usage data includes performance info [par. 0053], where the data/info is incorporated by the analytics device to produce the incident model (i.e., computes performance metrics) [par. 0060-61]);
detecting a network incident by using the computed performance metrics to correlate with a sequence of other metrics that are associated with symptoms related to network incidents (Alarms are generated based on service issues, memory used, processing resources used, and/or throughput (i.e., metrics), where historical alarm data is collected (i.e., over a time window) and the prediction model determines an incident based on e.g., the device determining that 90% of incidents (i.e., pattern) are associated with particular core network satisfying a threshold of e.g., alarm intensity greater than 50 alarms per hour (i.e., proportion of metric values crossing a threshold exceeding a defined percentage amount) [par. 0048, 73, 77]);
identifying a root cause of the detected network incident [par. 0104]; and
identifying, and providing for display, remediation of the identified root cause of the detected network incident [par. 0103].
Regarding claim 29, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses:
wherein using the computed performance metrics comprises detecting a presence of a sequence of metric values [par. 0017, 49, 60].
Regarding claim 31, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses:
wherein detecting the network incident comprises identifying deviations in historical time-series data computed based on network incidents over a duration of time [par. 0104].
Regarding claim 32, Kant discloses a method for automatic detection of a network incident from real-time network data [fig. 4, 6], the method comprising:
collecting network data [fig. 6 no. 610, fig. 1A-B];
computing performance metric values based on the collected network data [fig. 6 no. 620-640, fig. 4];
identifying a network incident by detecting a pattern of metric values over a time window, wherein detecting a pattern comprises detecting a proportion of metric values crossing a threshold exceeding a defined percentage amount, detecting a presence of a sequence of metric values, detecting a cyclical presence of a sequence of metric values, or combinations thereof (Alarms are generated based on service issues, memory used, processing resources used, and/or throughput (i.e., metrics), where historical alarm data is collected (i.e., over a time window) and the prediction model determines an incident based on e.g., the device determining that 90% of incidents (i.e., pattern) are associated with particular core network satisfying a threshold of e.g., alarm intensity greater than 50 alarms per hour (i.e., proportion of metric values crossing a threshold exceeding a defined percentage amount) [par. 0048, 73, 77]); and
identifying a root cause of the identified network incident [par. 0104].
Regarding claim 43, it substantially similar to claim 32, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Kant further discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium [fig. 3 no. 330, 340] storing a program [fig. 4, 6, 3 no. 340] which when executed by at least one processing unit [fig. 3 no. 320].
Regarding claims 33 and 44, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses:
wherein identifying root cause comprises correlating a sequence of performance metrics with other composite metrics that define relevant symptoms and mapping a set of one or more symptoms identified through the correlation to a root cause (Alarm data is correlated with incident data [par. 0060]).
Regarding claims 34 and 45, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses:
wherein identifying the root cause comprises aggregating root causes of network incidents over a longer time period than the time window (Time window can be 12 hrs, 24 hrs, 2 days, etc) and the window can be variable (i.e., can choose longer periods) [par. 0026, 64-66]).
Regarding claim 35, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses:
further comprising identifying remediation for the network incident [par. 0017-018, 0270-28, 079, 103, 112].
Regarding claim 36, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses:
via a controller or a direct interface [fig. 1B “Operator Device”], configuration settings of one or more network infrastructure elements to effectuate the identified remediation [par. 0017-018, 0270-28, 079, 103, 112].
Regarding claim 37, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses further comprising
identifying a plurality of network incidents based on the computed performance metric values [fig. 4 no. 410-430, par. 0062];
computing historical time-series data based on computed network incidents over time [par. 0062]; and
identifying the root cause based on the historical time-series data [par. 0104].
Regarding claim 38, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses:
further comprising identifying deviations in the computed historical time-series data [par. 0104].
Regarding claim 39, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant further discloses:
further comprising identifying changes in the computed historical time-series data and/or identifying factors contributing to these changes (Analytics gathers/collects equipment data over time, which is merged with alarm/incident data (i.e., changes/factors [par. 0055, 60-61]), wherein the identifying factors comprise configuration changes, topology changes, changes and upgrades of the network elements, or combinations thereof, in the network (Equipment data describing a network device (i.e., config changes, changes/upgrades of network elements) [par. 0016, 52, 55]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kant as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Noo (US 20130290520 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 27, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Kant discloses wherein the detected incident comprises a network infrastructure incident relating to one or more network infrastructure elements (Analytics gathers/collects equipment data over time, which is merged with alarm/incident data (i.e., changes/factors [par. 0055, 60-61]) and as discussed above, Kant does not explicitly disclose and the plurality of network incidents comprises a plurality of network infrastructure incidents relating to a plurality of sets of network infrastructure elements. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Noo.
In the same field of endeavor, Noo discloses:
and the plurality of network incidents comprises a plurality of network infrastructure incidents relating to a plurality of sets of network infrastructure elements (Tests are performed against the network devices (i.e., set of infrastructure elements) [par. 0052, 36]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kant with Noo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of proactively predicting the impact on a network of a network config change [Noo Abstract].
Regarding claim 28, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Kant discloses network incidents, as discussed above, Kant does not explicitly disclose wherein the detected incident comprises a client network incident relating to a particular client, and the plurality of network incidents comprise a plurality of client network incidents relating to a plurality of clients. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Noo.
In the same field of endeavor, Noo discloses:
wherein the detected incident comprises a client network incident relating to a particular client, and the plurality of network incidents comprise a plurality of client network incidents relating to a plurality of clients [par. 0052, 36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kant with Noo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of proactively predicting the impact on a network of a network config change [Noo Abstract].
Claims 30 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kant as applied to claims 26 and 32 respectively, and further in view of White (US 20080016412 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 30, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Kant discloses wherein using the computed performance metrics comprises detecting a … of a sequence of metric values, as discussed above, Kant does not explicitly disclose a cyclical presence. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by White.
In the same field of endeavor, White discloses:
a cyclical presence (Periodic [par. 0014, 60]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kant with White. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of reducing problem solving efforts [White par. 0002].
Regarding claim 40, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Kant discloses identifying the root cause, as discussed above, Kant does not explicitly disclose further comprising assigning a priority to the identified network incident, and accounting for the assigned priority. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by White.
In the same field of endeavor, White discloses:
further comprising assigning a priority to the identified network incident, and accounting for the assigned priority [par. 0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kant with White. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of reducing problem solving efforts [White par. 0002].
Regarding claim 41, Kant and White disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kant and White further disclose:
wherein the priority is determined [White, as discussed above] based on a percentage of affected entities, relative deviation from the historical baseline, presence of important entities within the affected entities, or combinations thereof (Relative deviation from historical baseline [Kant par. 01014]).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kant as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Lopez (US 20160277293 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Kant discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Kant discloses wherein the collected network data comprises data, as discussed above, Kant does not explicitly disclose obtained from deep packet analysis of real time network traffic, and data from Layer 2 to Layer 4 packet header values. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lopez.
In the same field of endeavor, Lopez discloses:
obtained from deep packet analysis of real time network traffic, and data from Layer 2 to Layer 4 packet header values [par. 0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kant with Lopez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of detecting and differentially forwarding packets [Lopez par. 0003].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465