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 . 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 03/27/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1,4,7,10 were amended, Claims 8,9 canceled and Claim 11 added by Applicant.
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Applicant’s Amendments / arguments
Applicant’s 03/27/2026 amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection in this action.
Response to Applicant’s amendments on the objection of claims 4,10
Objection to claims 4,10 in the prior act is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amending said claims 4,10 as suggested by the Examiner at the prior act.
Response to Applicant’s amendments on the 112(b) rejection of claims 7,8,10
112(b) rejection of claims 7,8,10 in the prior act is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, in part, as suggested by the Examiner at the prior act.
Response to Applicant’s amendments and rebuttal argument on the 101 rejection
- independent Claims 1,7, 10 -
SME Argument #1: Remarks 03/27/2026 p10 ¶4 argues that similar to USPTO’s Example 40, the current updating rule information for rules identified as having an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfying a predetermined condition, of independent Claims 1,7,10 is improvement in the technical field of event handling rules maintenance to render the claims patent eligible.
Examiner fully considered SME argument 1 but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by reminding Applicant that all 101 examples provided by USPTO, including Examples 40 are hypothetical and non-precedential. see USPTO “2019 PEG, 101 Examples 37-42 document entitled “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas” p.1, ¶1 2nd sentence. “The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the 2019 PEG” corroborating “May 2016 Update: Memorandum - Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection”, p.5 ¶2 Section C: “USPTO issued examples in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance, including […] July 2015 Update Appendix I: Examples […]; These examples, many of which are hypothetical, were drafted to show exemplary analyses under the Interim Eligibility Guidance and are intended to be illustrative of the analysis only. While some of the fact patterns draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of court decisions. Therefore, the examples should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection. Similarly see July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, pertaining to Examples 47-49, p.1, ¶1, 2nd sentence: “The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted below in the Issue Spotting Chart”.
In any event here, the argued updating rule information for rules identified as having an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfying a predetermined condition at independent Claims 1,7,10 is irreconcilably different than Example 40. This is because, at no point do the current claims recite anything remotely analogous to the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, in addition to collecting additional netflow protocol data relating to the predefined threshold to further analyze the cause of the abnormal condition as in hypothetical Claim 1 of the nonprecedential Example 40. Rather, as explained by Applicant at Remarks 03/27/2026 p.10 ¶4, the current independent claims are merely taking into account updating rule information for rules identified as having an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfying a predetermined condition. Yet, MPEP 2106.05(a) I cited BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons Inc 899 F3d 1281,1287-88,127 USPQ2d 1688,1693-94 (Fed Cir 2018) to stress that improvement in information is not equivalent to improvement in technology. Also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C ¶8 cited Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335,127 USPQ2d 1553, 1555 (Fed Cir 2018) to stress that acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content, does not preclude the claims from reciting describing or setting froth the abstract exception. It then follows that here, updating rule information for rules identified as having an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfying a predetermined condition as argued by Applicant above with respect to Claims 1,7,10 would also not preclude the current claims from describing or setting forth the abstract exception
Additionally or alternatively, the Examiner also notes that the Applicant’s SME 1 argument, can also be construed as an instance of performing a judgment in a computer environment; namely to update rule information based on prior identification or observation and evaluation when occurrence interval of a specific event is satisfying a predetermined condition. Yet, MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III ¶2 is clear that performing a judgement based on an observation and evaluation does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception. This is the case even when such processes are performed in a computer environment, as stressed by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C at #2. Here, such abstract judgment is set forth as updating rule information for rules by an equally abstract observation (here identif[ication]) while the evaluation is being set forth as when occurrence interval of a specific event satisfying a predetermined condition.
Further, when more granularly testing the level of computerization or automation, at the subsequent steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the Examiner discovers at MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) that monitoring of audit log data executed on a computer, represents a mere invocation of computer components or machinery to apply the abstract exception which does not integrate said abstract exception into a practical application of provide significantly more. It then follows that here, use of a processor, to “identify, based on the history information, rule information in which an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfies a predetermined condition” would similarly to the aforementioned monitoring or identifying of audit log data or information by a computer, not integrate the abstract exception not a practical application. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.05(f)(v) finds that requiring use of a computer component to tailor information and provide it on a generic computer, is another example of invoking computers or machinery as tools which does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. It then follows that here, the analogous “updating the identified rule information based on update information received from the management terminal” would, similar to the tailoring and providing information on a computer, not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than what was already found as being abstract .
Based on the preponderance of legal evidence demonstrated above, the Examiner finds that here there is no improvement in actual technology to render the claims eligible. Therefore, SME argument 1 is found unpersuasive.
SME argument # 2: Remarks 03/27/2026 p.10 ¶5 -p.11 ¶1 argues that similar to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the currently recited “output the identified rule information to a management terminal”, and “update the identified rule information based on update information received from the management terminal” evidences an improved user interface with the ability to present limited or only relevant information to users based on predetermined conditions.
Examiner fully considered the SME argument 2 above but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive because Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018) as cited by MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and raised by Applicant at Remarks 03/27/2026 p.10 ¶5 -p.11 ¶1 was found to provide an improved user interface for electronic devices that displayed an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary was selectable by a user to launch the respective application1. Here however, the mere “output the identified rule information to a management terminal”, and “update the identified rule information based on update information received from the management terminal” as raised by Applicant at Remarks 03/27/2026 p.10 ¶5 -p.11 ¶1, has nothing to do with the technological details of unlaunched applications, or selection to launch the respective application as was the case in “Core Wireless” supra. Rather here, the output or display of limited or only relevant information to users based on predetermined conditions, as asserted by Applicant at Remarks 03/27/2026 p.10 ¶5 -p.11 ¶1, is more similar to Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1 which, as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D, found its claims ineligible despite their capability to accumulate and update measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics, grid data, and non-grid data in real time as to wide area and local area portions of the interconnected electric power, and then provide concurrent information. In fact, MPEP 2106.05(h)(v) cites the same Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to corroborate that limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment characterized by certain results of the collection and analysis, does not render the claims patent eligible. Examiner relied right from the onset on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C ¶8 by citing Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to show that acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content did not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception. In fact, the same MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C ¶2 cited Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015) to establish at storing user-selected pre-set limits [akin here to “predetermined condition”] in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device, also did not preclude its claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v) cited the same Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636,1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) to attest that requiring use of software to tailor information and provide it to user on a computer, represents mere invocation or computer components or machinery to apply the abstract idea, which does not integrate it into a practical application or provide significantly more.
It then follows that here, similar to the display of limited or certain results of the collection and analysis as tested in Electric Power Group, the controlling of the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content as tested in Interval Licensing, and the tailoring of information to be provided on a computer as tested in Intellectual Ventures, the currently outputting of the identified rule information to a management terminal, and “updating the identified rule information based on update information received from the management terminal as argued by Remarks 03/27/2026 p.10 ¶5 -p.11 ¶1 should also not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract idea, or integrate it into a practical application or provide significantly more than what was already found to be the abstract exception.
Given the preponderance of legal evidence in the analysis above, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s SME argument # 2 unpersuasive.
- dependent Claim 11 -
SME argument #3: Remarks 03/27/2026 p.11 ¶3 -p.12 ¶1 argues that similar to USPTO’s Example 42, the current recitation of “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format” at Claim 11, provides an improvement that evidences a practical application of any alleged abstract idea.
Examiner fully considered the subject matter eligibility SME argument # 3 but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by resubmitting that all USPTO’s 101 examples, including Examples 42 are hypothetical and non-precedential. see USPTO “2019 PEG, 101 Examples 37-42 document entitled “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas” p.1, ¶1 2nd sentence. “The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the 2019 PEG” corroborating “May 2016 Update: Memorandum - Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection”, p.5 ¶2 Section C: “USPTO issued examples in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance, including […] July 2015 Update Appendix I: Examples […]; These examples, many of which are hypothetical, were drafted to show exemplary analyses under the Interim Eligibility Guidance and are intended to be illustrative of the analysis only. While some of the fact patterns draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of court decisions. Therefore, the examples should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection. Similarly see July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, pertaining to Examples 47-49, p.1, ¶1, 2nd sentence: “The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted below in the Issue Spotting Chart”.
In any event, here, the currently argued capabilities of the processor to “convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format” at dependent claim 11 is irreconcilably different than Example 42, because Claim 1 of USPTO’s Example 42 provided technological details for converting leading to “automatically generating a message containing the updated information about the patient condition whenever updated information has been stored”, which as read in light of to the Disclosure of Example 42 ensured that each of a group of health care providers was always given immediate notice and access to changes to rapidly adapt their own medical diagnostic and treatment strategy in accordance with other providers’ actions. Yet here, the capability to “convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format” provides nothing remotely analogous to the technological improvement of the hypothetical Example 42.
First, as an issue of claim construction or claim interpretation, the Examiner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation per MPEP 2111 and observes that the recitation of “convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format” at dependent Claim 11 is recited at a high level of generality. This is important because MPEP 2104.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) establish that the claim itself must reflect the technological improvement. Here, the improvement is does not appear to be reflected in the claim, nor does it appear to provide the requisite technical detail to demonstrate it is actually technological. In fact, given the high level of generality of the recitation “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format” at dependent Claim 11, the Examiner asserts that such ability to convert can be argued as not meaningfully different than the abstract:
(i) encoding found ineligible in RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as cited by MPEP 2106.04(II) (A) 2, or
(ii) converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form[at] found ineligible in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,65,175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972) cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I ¶1, or
(iii) acquiring an updated version of previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content, found ineligible in Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2018) as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C ¶8, or
(iv) generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form found ineligible in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A iv, or
(v) accessing, compiling and combining of data from disparate information sources which had different file formats found ineligible in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys and cited by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii). [bolded emphasis added].
Also, MPEP 2106.05(f) cited Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 121 USPQ2d 1940, Fed. Cir. 2017, to stress that patent eligibility is not granted when the additional computer elements apply the abstract exception. Specifically, in “Intellectual Ventures” supra, the Court did not find as reason for eligibility creating a dynamic document based upon management record types-MRTs and primary record types-PRTs, to allow the system to modify multiple sets of XML data components. Similarly, in “Intellectual Ventures I LLC v T-Mobile USA, Inc., No C.A. No. 13-1632-LPS, 2017 BL 295361, 2017 WL 3706495 (D Del Aug 23, 2017)” the Court reached a similar ineligibility verdict even when the claim required converting a multimedia message into a common format for sending to another party and then converting the received common format back into [a] multimedia message. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc, 899 F.3d 1281,1287-88,127 USPQ2d 1688,1693-94 (Fed Cir 2018) as cited by MPEP 2106.05(a) I, is also clear that improvement in information is not equivalent to improvement in technology.
Given the preponderance of legal evidence above, the Examiner submits that recitation of “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format” at independent Claim 11, does not provide an improvement to show integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the Applicant’s SME argument #3 is found unpersuasive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to prior art Arguments
Prior art argument 1: Remarks 03/27/2026 p.12 ¶2-¶4 argues that the prior art of Yang et al, US 20100211817 A1, [by Assignee or Applicant AT&T], hereinafter Yang does not teach:
- “identifying, based on history information, rule information in which an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfies a predetermined condition” and
Examiner considered prior art argument 1 but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive
by applying the broadest reasonable test of MPEP 2111 and relying on Applicant’s own admission at Remarks 03/27/2026 p.13 ¶3, that Yang utilizes rules to classify problems or trends, as chronic, or otherwise, by collecting data at specific intervals, e.g. every 60 minutes, and then tracking recurring problems using the data and the rules. Thus, based on Applicant’s admission alone, it can be seen that Yang determines or identifies, based on the specific past or historical intervals, rule information in which the event is defined as or classified to satisfy the chronic or non-chronic condition. The disclosure oy Yang corroborates this at ¶ [0061] 3rd-7th sentences: The chronic indicator [or identifier] uses data and rules to determine if the problem should be classified as chronic. For example, the trouble code data, data indicating who reported the data (e.g. auto-detected trouble) and the number of recurrences over a time period used to determine [or identify] if the problem is chronic. For example, a 1st group of trouble codes may be considered [or identified as] chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for the same circuit in a 24 hour period. A 2nd group of trouble codes may be considered [or identified as] chronic if reported 3 or more times for same circuit within a week. Other trouble codes may be considered [or identified] chronic if they are reported for same circuit 3 or more times for the same circuit within a month.
Yang ¶ [0063] Further, a continued performance indicator may be used to determine [or identify] if the circuit performance is stable, improving, or degrading [as rule related information] after a trouble is classified as chronic. The continued performance indicator may be determined based on data collected from devices associated with the circuit identified as having a chronic trouble. In some embodiments, data may be collected at periodic intervals (e.g. every 60 minutes) and used to determine [or identify] whether the circuit performance is improving, or degrading.
Yang ¶ [0073] 3rd-4th sentences: a circuit may be considered [or identified] to have recurring problems if it has x problems (trouble tickets) within a y day period. For example, 3 problems or trouble tickets within a 30 day period may indicate a recurring problem. In some embodiments, the number of problems or the period may vary depending on the trouble code or other data in the trouble ticket. ¶ [0077] 4th- 6th sentences: if rules determine [or identify] that the equipment or circuit is not performing in acceptable manner, than the system return to block 410 to perform another diagnosis [interpreted as mitigative action] of the problem, using any data that has been obtained since the problem was initially reported. A performance indicator [or identifier] may be used by the rules to determine [or identify] performance for example, a formula [as another example of “rule information”] to calculate circuit performance may be as follows: Minutes with service degradation (errored seconds, severely errored seconds, unavailable seconds), divided by total measured minutes. Many equipment vendors provide 15 minutes of performance data. Thus during the 15-minute interval, if a circuit or equipment experiences 3 minutes degradation (for any of the reasons listed above), degradation would be 20%=(3/15)×100%. The factors used in the determination of service degradation, i.e. errored seconds, severely errored seconds, unavailable seconds etc. may include the error conditions provided in detail above. ¶ [0078] 3rd-5th sentences: Unacceptable performance may be indicated [or identified] if the circuit performance has degraded past the certain percentage. For example, for some embodiments, a degradation of less than 5% may be considered acceptable while 5% or more is unacceptable. Other embodiments may use more strict consideration, e.g. a degradation of more than 1% may be considered unacceptable.
PNG
media_image1.png
960
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang Fig.4 emphasis on left hand feedback loop in support of the rejection arguments
Based on the Applicant’s own admission and Yang’s determin[ing], indicat[ing] and thus “identifying” of how a problem is being classified, how it is evolving or recurring, its continual performance and the formula or information calculating its performance based on measured metrics or thresholds, the Examiner concludes that Yang teaches, by preponderance of evidence, the rule information, as contested by Applicant above. Thus prior art argument #1 is unpersuasive.
Prior art argument 2: Remarks 03/27/2026 p.13 ¶5-p.14 ¶4 argues Yang does not teach:
- “update the identified rule information based on update information received from the management terminal” because Yang ¶ [0060] allegedly teaches only static rules.
Examiner considered the prior art argument 2 but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
Examiner points to ¶ [0060] 3rd-6th sentences stating: “The rules may be established in a variety of ways. For example, statistical analysis may be applied to data received regarding past problems, their attempted resolutions and codes associated with the attempted resolutions, and their ultimate resolution to determine a statistical model. The statistical model may be transformed into rules for diagnosing and monitoring problems that may tum into chronic problems if not addressed properly. The statistical model may vary depending on the type of circuits involved”. Thus, relying solely on Yang ¶ [0060] alone as raised by Applicant at Remarks 03/27/2026 p.14 ¶2, the variety or varying of rules effectively rebuts the Applicant’s premise that such rules are static. Examiner also notes that Applicant exclusively relies on Yang ¶ [0060] for the rebuttal and dismisses the teachings of Yang ¶ [0053] 3rd sentence, ¶ [0064] 4th-6th sentences, ¶ [0074] - ¶ [0075], ¶ [0077] 1st-4th sentences as mapped by Non-Final Act 12/29/2025 p.20-p.21 ¶2 and reincorporated herein. For example, Yang ¶ [0064] 4th-6th sentences discloses an auto-diagnose module that uses the rules from rules management module 314 in combination with data received from network devices to provide diagnosis of problem in the telecom system and attempt to find [update about] root cause of the problem. auto-diagnose module 304 receives data from multiple network devices on multiple network segments. This data is used with patterns and correlations identified in historical data regarding resolution codes for past trouble tickets to accurately determine or predict root cause for a problem with a circuit. ¶ [0077] 1st-4th sentences: At decision block 434, a decision is made regarding the performance of equipment and/or circuits on the watch list. The decision may be driven by rules in rule management system 314. If the rules indicate that the equipment or circuit is performing acceptably, then the method proceed to block 414 to automatically close the trouble ticket. Yet, if rules determine that the equipment or circuit is not performing in acceptable manner, then the system return to block 410 to perform other diagnosis of the problem, using any data obtained since the problem was initially reported.
Examiner submits that the evidence provided by the update on the decision rules to return on the left feedback loop 434->410 of Fig.4. Thus, Yang meets the limitation of updating the identified rule information based on update information received from the management terminal as previously recited dependent Claim 8 and now incorporated into the amendment of Claims 1,7,10. Thus, despite the Applicant’s allegation to the contrary, the Yang’s rules are not static but flexible or dynamic. This is further exemplified by Yang at ¶ [0074]-¶ [0075]. For example,
Yang ¶ [0074] states: If the problem is determined to be with a circuit having recurring problems, then at block 428, the system uses rules and trouble ticket data to determine if the current problem is a type that is associated with chronic problems. In some embodiments, a chronic type indicator is set based on the determination. It is possible that a problem may be recurring, but is not necessarily part of a chronic problem with a circuit. In some embodiments, the system determines an indicator of whether the problem is a potential chronic problems with high probability to repeat based on analysis and correlation of resolution codes into categories. As an example, one indicator of a potential chronic problem is when a resolution code indicating a hard down was provided and a failed circuit or equipment was fixed. A second example of an indicator of a potential chronic problem is when a resolution codes such as NTF (No Trouble Found), TOK (Test OK) or Alarm Came Clear is provided indicates that no fix was provided to a circuit or equipment. This may be indicative of unstable equipment or circuits. Other data and resolution codes may be used to determine if a problem is a potential chronic problem. If the problem is determined to be not a chronic problem, then the method stops at block 426. Further,
Yang ¶ [0075] states: If the problem is part of a recurring set of problems and the problem type is potentially a chronic problem, the system checks the circuit history and based on the history and the problem type, uses rules to determine a monitoring period. In some embodiments, the history logs and current problem data are used by rules to provide two categories each with a different monitoring period. A first category is used for problems in which the resolution codes indicate that failed equipment or a failed circuit was fixed. These are referred to as hard down problems. In this case, a monitoring period of relatively short monitoring period may be established for monitoring the relevant equipment and/or circuits. For example, a monitoring period of 7 days may be established. A second category may be used for problems that are indicative of an unstable circuit or equipment. Examples include problems where the resolution code was Tested OK, Came Clear or No Trouble Found. In this case, a relatively longer monitoring period may be established, i.e. 30 days. The above rules are examples. Alternative embodiments may have other rules used to determine other categories and monitoring periods based on the input data)
PNG
media_image1.png
960
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang Fig.4 emphasis on left hand feedback loop in support of the rejection arguments
Based on the Applicant’s own reliance on Yang ¶ [0060] and the corroborative evidence provided by Examiner at Yang Fig.4, ¶ [0053] 3rd sentence, ¶ [0064] 4th-6th sentences, ¶ [0074] -
¶ [0075], ¶ [0077] 1st-4th sentences, it is clear that the rule information used in Yang is not static but rather dynamic or repeatedly or iteratively updated.
Therefore, the Applicant’s prior art argument #2 is unpersuasive.
- new dependent Claim 11-
Prior art argument 3: Remarks 03/26/2026 p.15 ¶3 argues the prior art does not teach or suggest the new “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format" at dependent Claim 11.
Examiner fully considered the Applicant’s argument which is rendered moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Examiner now relies in Aki et al, US 20020083169 A1 hereinafter Aki to
- “convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format”.
(Aki ¶ [0027] 1st sentence: la sets a monitoring policy, including various rules and criteria, on which system 1 monitors network 2. ¶ [0029] 3rd sentence: noting the policy data is referred in the monitoring policy setting unit 1a. Then at ¶ [0039] 1st sentence: The interface 19f performs protocol translation and data format conversion to allow the CPU 19a to communicate with other devices on network 16. It also converts data formats of signals sent from the input devices 19i Similarly, ¶ [0041] 1st sentence: communication controller 20a performs protocol translation and data format conversion for the purpose of communication with other devices on the network 16)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) describe or set forth the abstract “operation support”, summarized at the preamble of each of independent Claims 1,7,10, and detailed in the body of Claims 1-7,10-11 tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2, 1st sentence as mental computer-aided observation (here of “history information” at independent Claims 1,7,10), with respect to equally abstract computer-aided decision making or judgment (here “action” “taken response to occurrence of the predetermined event” at independent Claims 1,7,10, “identify, from among the plurality of pieces of rule information, rule information defining the event that is determined to satisfy the predetermined condition” at dependent Claim 2) and computer-aided evaluation (here ”identify based on history information, rule information in which an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfies a predetermine condition” at independent Claims 1,7,10, “determine that the occurrence interval satisfies a predetermined condition in a case where a change in a trend before or after a predetermined time point is detected from the occurrence trend” at dependent Claim 2, “determine that the occurrence interval satisfies the predetermined condition in a case where it is detected that an occurrence frequency of the specific event becomes higher than that before the predetermined time point” at dependent Claim 3, “determine that the occurrence interval satisfies the predetermined condition in a case where a predetermined period of time or more than a predetermined period of time has elapsed since a last occurrence of the specific event” at dependent Claim 4, “calculate, from the plurality of occurrence dates and times in the specific event, a first occurrence frequency of the event in a period of time before the predetermined time point and a second occurrence frequency of the event in a period of time after the predetermined time point as the occurrence trend; and determine whether the occurrence interval satisfies a predetermined condition or not based on a relationship between the first occurrence frequency and the second occurrence frequency” at dependent Claim 5) and computer-aided opinion (here “output reason why the chance” “is detected” at dependent Claim 6). Such computer-aided observation, evaluation and judgment can also be viewed as a combination of collecting information, analyzing it, set forth here by the above identification, determination, calculation or evaluation), and display (here “output”) certain results of the collection and analysis, as was the case in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,1353-54,119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.
Most importantly, the Examiner stresses that when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a) (2) III C #1 and #3, the use or computer as tool to aid in the observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2, 1st sentence, and mapped to the claim language above, does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract mental processes. Also, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIIC#2, the fact that the mental processes are performed in a computer environment, which is set forth here by expression “in the operation system” (Claims 1,7,10), does not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract mental processes as identified and mapped above. Thus, the Examiner submits that there is a preponderance of legal evidence showing that the claims’ character as a whole, recites, describes or sets forth the abstract idea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found to merely apply the already recited abstract idea, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or narrow it to a technological environment or field of use, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(h), neither of which integrates said abstract exception into a practical application. For example, even if considered beyond computer-aids, as identified above, the computer components such as “a memory” where “pieces of rule information defining actions respectively corresponding to a plurality of events occurring in an operation” are stor[ed] at independent Claim 1, and similar recitations of “from the management terminal”, “receive”, “pieces of rule information defining actions respectively corresponding to a plurality of events occurring in an operation system, and store the plurality of pieces of rule information in a storage device” at independent Claim 7 and apparently similarly recited at independent Claim 10, would represent, along with recitation of “the management terminal” “transmit update information of the rule information to the operation support apparatus” at independent Claim 7, additional computer-based elements.
Yet, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶12 is clear that use of a computer or other machinery to receive, store, or transmit data, [as identified and above] invoke computers or other machinery as mere tools, which do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
In a similar manner, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v)3 states that requiring use of software to tailor information and provide it on a computer, also represent invocation of computers or machinery as a tool which does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. It then follows that here the “output the identified rule information to a management terminal; and update the identified rule information based on update information received from the management terminal” at Claims 1,7,10, and similarly “display the identified rule information output from the operation support apparatus; and transmit update information of the rule information to the operation support apparatus, and the operation support apparatus is configured to update the identified rule information based on the update information received from the management terminal” at Claim 7 would also represent use of computer components to tailor information and provide it to a computer which would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Further,
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii)4 states that monitoring audit log data executed on a computer is another example of invoking computers or machinery as a tool, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It then follows that the capabilities of memory instruct[ed] processor to “register history information in the memory a case where an action defined in rule information corresponding to a predetermined event among the plurality of pieces of rule information is taken in response to an occurrence of the predetermined event in the operation system” and “identity, based on the history information, rule information in which an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfies a predetermined condition” at Claims 1,7,10 represent such monitoring of audit log data, that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per recitation of “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format” at dependent Claim 11, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(f) which cited Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 121 USPQ2d 1940, Fed. Cir. 2017, to stress that patent eligibility is not granted when the additional computer elements apply the abstract exception. Specifically, in “Intellectual Ventures” supra, the Court did not find as reason for eligibility creating a dynamic document based upon management record types-MRTs and primary record types-PRTs, to allow the system to modify multiple sets of XML data components. Similarly, in “Intellectual Ventures I LLC v T-Mobile USA, Inc., No C.A. No. 13-1632-LPS, 2017 BL 295361, 2017 WL 3706495 (D Del Aug 23, 2017)” the Court reached a similar ineligibility verdict even when the claim required converting a multimedia message into a common format for sending to another party and then converting the received common format back into [a] multimedia message. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc, 899 F.3d 1281,1287-88,127 USPQ2d 1688,1693-94 (Fed Cir 2018) cited by MPEP 2106.05 (a) I, is also clear that improvement in information is not equivalent to improvement in technology.
Last but not least, recitation of “in the operation system” at Claims 1,7,10, can also be argued as narrowing the abstract exception above, to a field of use or technological environment, such as narrowing the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [supra], to event data related to such operation environment, which, per MPEP 2106.05(h) vi., does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the Examiner has provided a preponderance of legal evidence showing that even when considered as additional, elements, the computer components recited throughout the Claims 1-7, 10-11 do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05(d) II guidelines and carries over the above findings tested per MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) to submit that as shown above, the additional computer-based elements, merely apply the already recited abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow the abstract exception to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. For these same reasons, said computer-based additional elements also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, in light of MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or (h) as sufficient option(s) for evidence without necessarily having to rely on the conventionality test of MPEP 2106.05(d). Yet, assuming arguendo that further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional, computer-based elements, the Examiner would further point to MPEP 2106.05(d) to demonstrate that said additional elements would remain well-understood, routine, conventional. In such case, the Examiner would rely on MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and point to Applicant’s Specification as follows:
- Original Specification ¶ [0023] 2nd, 4th sentences reciting at high level of generality: … “some or all of the components of each apparatus or device may be realized by, for example, a general-purpose or dedicated circuitry, a processor, or a combination thereof”… “Some or all of the components of each apparatus or device may be realized by, for example, a combination of the above-described circuit and a program. Furthermore, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or a quantum processor (quantum computer control chip) can be used as the processor”.
- Original Specification ¶ [0064], reciting at high level of generality: “The present invention has been described with reference to the example embodiments (and examples). However, the present invention is not limited to the above-described example embodiments (and examples). Various changes that can be understood by those skilled in the art can be made to the configurations and details of the present invention within the scope of the present invention”.
All of this preponderance of factual and/or legal evidence demonstrate that the additional computer-based elements fail to provide anything significantly more than what was already identified as abstract. Thus Claims 1-7,10-11, although directed to statutory categories (here “apparatus” or machine at Claims 1-6,11 “system” or machine at Claims 7 and “non-transitory medium”, computer product, or article of manufacture at Claim 10) they still recite, or at least set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer-based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). Hence Claims 1-7,10-11 are ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as disclosed by:
Yang et al, US 20100211817 A1, by Applicant AT&T hereinafter Yang. As per,
Claims 1,7,10 Yang teaches “An operation support apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to” (Claim 1)/ “An operation support system comprising: a management terminal; and an operation support apparatus, wherein the operation support apparatus is configured to”(Claim 7)/ “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an operation support program for causing a computer to execute:” (Claim10) (Yang ¶ [0001] detecting, managing, resolving chronic problems in telecommunications networks. ¶ [0011] 2nd sentence: details are set forth in the following description and in Figs.1-6 to provide an understanding of such embodiments. Further explanation at ¶ [0082]-¶ [0087])
- “store a plurality of pieces of rule information defining actions respectively corresponding to a plurality of events occurring in an operation system in the memory” (Claim 1) / “receive, from the management terminal, a plurality of pieces of rule information defining actions respectively corresponding to a plurality of events occurring in an operation system, and store the plurality of pieces of rule information in a storage device” (Claim 7); (Yang ¶ [0060] rule management module 314 maintains [or stores] and manages a set of rules for handling problems in telecommunication environment 300. The rules include rules determining a circuit is having chronic problems, rules for diagnosing cause of chronic problems and rules for monitoring circuit that has had chronic problems. The rules may be established in various ways. For example, statistical analysis may be applied to data [or information] received regarding past problems, their attempted resolutions and codes associated with the attempted resolutions, and their ultimate resolution to determine a statistical model. The statistical model may be transformed into rules for diagnosing and monitoring problems that may turn into chronic problems if not addressed properly. The statistical model vary depending on type of circuits involved. For example, different statistical models may be used depending on whether the circuit is a voice, data or video circuit.
Yang ¶ [0061] Rules management module may use indicators or attributes as part of the rule evaluation of whether a trouble or problem is classified as chronic and what treatment the trouble or problem will receive. In some embodiments, a chronic indicator is used to determine if the problem may be classified as chronic. The chronic indicator in some embodiments uses data and rules to determine if the problem should be classified as a chronic problem. For example, the trouble code data indicating who reported the data (e.g customer report or auto-detected trouble) and the number of recurrences over a time period may be used to determine if the problem is chronic. For example, a 1st group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for same circuit in a 24-hour period. A 2nd group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they reported 3 or more times for same circuit within a week. Other trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported for the same circuit 3 or more times for the same circuit within a month. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that other trouble frequencies are possible and within the scope of the inventive subject matter).
/ “in a case where an action defined in rule information corresponding to a predetermined event among a plurality of pieces of rule information stored in a storage device configured to store the plurality of pieces of rule information defining actions respectively corresponding to a plurality of events occurring in an operation system, is taken in response to a specific occurrence of the predetermined event in the operation system” / (independent Claim 10)
(Yang above and ¶ [0071] At block 410, auto-diagnose module receives the trouble ticket data and uses the data, along with rules from rule management module 314 to provide a diagnosis of the root cause of the problem. The auto-diagnose module obtain other data (i.e. from network components) to diagnose the problem. ¶ [0072] At block 412, the results of automatic diagnosis are analyzed to determine next action to be taken at block 414. The rules maintained by rule management module 314 are used to determine the next action. Various actions may be taken at block 414 depending on the rules. For example, the ticket may be automatically closed at block 416 if the rules determine no problem exists. Alternatively, the rules may indicate that the ticket is to be referred to technician or dispatch center at block 418. Further, at block 420 the rules may indicate that a notification should be provided to customer. Similarly, at block 422 the rules may indicate that a work center should be notified that the ticket has been opened. Other actions may be determined according to the rules and such actions are within the scope of the subject matter. Further, it should be noted that the rules may indicate that more than one action may be initiated.
Yang ¶ [0073] After the appropriate action has been completed at block 414, the method proceeds to block 424 where the system determines if the circuit involved with the trouble report is exhibiting recurring problem. In some embodiments, the rules maintained by rule management system and trouble ticket data are used to determine if a circuit is exhibiting a recurring problem. As example, a circuit may be considered to have recurring problems if it has x problems (trouble tickets) within a y day period. For example, 3 problems or trouble tickets within a 30 day period may indicate a recurring problem. In some embodiments, the number of problems or the period vary depending on the trouble code or other data in the trouble ticket. Other rules may be used instead of or in addition to the above to determine that a circuit is having recurring problems.
Yang ¶ [0074] If the problem is determined to be with a circuit having recurring problems, then at block 428, the system uses rules and trouble ticket data to determine if the current problem is a type that is associated with chronic problems. In some embodiments, a chronic type indicator is set based on the determination. It is possible that a problem may be recurring, but is not necessarily part of a chronic problem with a circuit. In some embodiments, the system determines an indicator of whether the problem is a potential chronic problems with high probability to repeat based on analysis and correlation of resolution codes into categories. As an example, one indicator of a potential chronic problem is when a resolution code indicating a hard down was provided and a failed circuit or equipment was fixed. A second example of an indicator of a potential chronic problem is when a resolution codes such as NTF (No Trouble Found), TOK (Test OK) or Alarm Came Clear is provided indicates that no fix was provided to a circuit or equipment. This may be indicative of unstable equipment or circuits. Other data and resolution codes may be used to determine if a problem is a potential chronic problem. If the problem is determined to be not a chronic problem, then the method stops at block 426).
- “register history information in the memory / storage device in a case where an action defined in rule information corresponding to a predetermined event among the plurality of pieces of rule information is taken in response to an occurrence of the predetermined event in the operation system, the history information containing occurrence date and time of the event and the rule information for the event”; (independent Claims 1,7) / “a process of registering history information in the storage device, the history information containing occurrence date and time of the event and the rule information for the event” (Claim 10) (Yang teaches many examples:
Yang ¶ [0054] 1st-3rd sentences: Ticketing module 310 manages trouble tickets for system 302. As noted above, a trouble ticket is typically opened when a problem is detected in a network. The trouble ticket includes data describing the type of problem or trouble with a circuit and efforts made to resolve the problem. ¶ [0057] 2nd sentence: using the ticketing module 310 to update the trouble ticket to indicate how the technician dealt with the reported problem.
Yang ¶ [0059] 3rd-4th sentences: in a significant number of cases, the problem recurs, either because the problem was not correctly diagnosed in first instance, or because the condition, equipment or circuit causing the problem could not be determined. A telecommunications circuit which exhibits recurring problems may be referred to as a chronic circuit.
Yang ¶ [0060] 1st,4th-5th sentences: Rule management module 314 maintains [or stores] and manages rules set handling problems in telecom environment 300. For example, statistical analysis may be applied to data received regarding past problems, their attempted resolutions and codes associated with the attempted resolutions, and their ultimate resolution to determine a statistical model transformed into rules for diagnosing and monitoring problems…
Yang ¶ [0062] 5th sentence: a trouble ticket that was initially reported by a customer and then Tested OK or Came Clear may be classified as chronic if further intermittently occurring and automatically detected alarms indicate intermittent trouble with the circuit. Further, at
Yang ¶ [0063] 1st sentence: a continued performance indicator may be used to determine if the circuit performance is stable, improving, or degrading after a trouble is classified as chronic.
Yang ¶ [0064] 5th sentence: auto-diagnose module 304 receives data from multiple network devices on multiple network segments. For example, ¶ [0066] 1st,4th sentences: in Fig.3, system 302 receives data from devices in core network, access network, and customer premises network. This data include layer 1 layout and status info such as historical alarms and PM (Performance Monitoring) data, layer 2-3 configuration and status (e.g. LMI status, results of interface commands), and trouble report status and history. ¶ [0067] 1st-2nd sentences: Thus in Fig.3, the system provide an end-to-end total service view desirable because it can eliminate blind spots in a groups view of the service. ¶ [0064] 6th sentence: This data can be used with patterns and correlations identified in historical data regarding resolution codes for past trouble tickets to accurately determine or predict a root cause for a problem with a circuit.
Yang ¶ [0073] 2nd-3rd sentences: the rules maintained by rule management system and trouble ticket data are used to determine if a circuit is exhibiting a recurring problem. As an example, a circuit may be considered to have recurring problems if it has x problems (trouble tickets) within a y day period. ¶ [0075] If the problem is part of a recurring set of problems and the problem type is potentially a chronic problem, the system checks the circuit history and based on the history and problem type, uses rules to determine a monitoring period. In some embodiments, the history logs and current problem data are used by rules to provide 2 categories each with a different monitoring period. A first category is used for problems in which the resolution codes indicate failed equipment or failed circuit was fixed. These are referred as hard down problems. In this case, a monitoring period of relatively short monitoring period may be established for monitoring the relevant equipment and/or circuits. For example, a monitoring period of 7 days may be established. A 2nd category may be used for problems indicative of an unstable circuit or equipment. Examples include problems where the resolution code was Tested OK, Came Clear or No Trouble Found. In this case, a relatively longer monitoring period may be established, for example 30 days. The above rules are examples. Alternative embodiments may have other rules used to determine other categories and monitoring periods based on the input data)
- “identify based on the history information, rule information in which an occurrence interval of a specific event satisfies a predetermined condition”;
(Yang ¶ [0061] 3rd-7th sentences: The chronic indicator in some embodiments uses data and rules to determine if the problem should be classified as chronic. For example, the trouble code data, data indicating who reported the data (e.g. auto-detected trouble) and the number of recurrences over a time period used to determine if the problem is chronic. For example, a 1st group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for the same circuit in a 24 hour period. A 2nd group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if reported 3 or more times for same circuit within a week. Other trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported for same circuit 3 or more times for the same circuit within a month.
Yang ¶ [0063] Further, a continued performance indicator may be used to determine if the circuit performance is stable, improving, or degrading after a trouble is classified as chronic. The continued performance indicator may be determined based on data collected from devices associated with the circuit identified as having a chronic trouble. In some embodiments, data may be collected at periodic intervals (e.g. every 60 minutes) and used to determine whether the circuit performance is improving, or degrading. ¶ [0073] 3rd-4th sentences: a circuit may be considered to have recurring problems if it has x problems (trouble tickets) within a y day period. For example, 3 problems or trouble tickets within a 30 day period may indicate a recurring problem. In some embodiments, the number of problems or the period may vary depending on the trouble code or other data in the trouble ticket. ¶ [0077] 4th- 6th sentences: if rules determine that the equipment or circuit is not performing in acceptable manner, than the system return to block 410 to perform another diagnosis of the problem, using any data that has been obtained since the problem was initially reported. A performance indicator may be used by the rules to determine performance or example, a formula to calculate circuit performance may be as follows: Minutes with service degradation (errored seconds, severely errored seconds, unavailable seconds), divided by total measured minutes. Many equipment vendors provide 15 minutes of performance data. Thus during the 15-minute interval, if a circuit or equipment experiences 3 minutes degradation (for any of the reasons listed above), degradation would be 20%=(3/15)×100%. The factors used in the determination of service degradation, i.e. errored seconds, severely errored seconds, unavailable seconds etc. may include the error conditions provided in detail above. ¶ [0078] 3rd-5th sentences: Unacceptable performance may be indicated if the circuit performance has degraded past the certain percentage. For example, for some embodiments, a degradation of less than 5% may be considered acceptable while 5% or more is unacceptable. Other embodiments may use more strict consideration, e.g. a degradation of more than 1% may be considered unacceptable) “and”
- “output” / “a process of outputting” “the identified rule information to a management terminal”.
(Yang ¶ [0018] 4th sentence: Management interface 204 provides an interface to obtain performance data 206 about the operation of the network device 202. For example, at, Fig.5,
¶ [0078] 2nd-4th sentences: acceptable performance may be indicated [or outputted] if circuit performance has not degraded, improved, or not degraded beyond a certain %. Unacceptable performance may be indicated [or outputted] if the circuit performance has degraded past certain %. For example, a degradation of less than 5% may be acceptable while 5% or more is unacceptable. Also ¶ [0079] 2nd-5th sentences: The graphical display provides a way for operators to rapidly determine performance trend for a circuit. For example, different graphical indicators may be used to display current performance trend for the circuit. If the circuit trend is positive that is, is performing acceptably or improving, then the system continues to monitor the circuit for the monitoring period. However, if the circuit trend is negative, that is, the performance is degrading, then the system or operator can be alerted. ¶ [0080] 3rd-8th sentences: The watch [or outputted] list identifies circuits and equipment (column 504), provide statistics (column 506) and provides an indicator of current performance trend (Trend column 508) for the circuit or equipment. In the example, an arrow in Trend column provides a graphical view of performance indicator in a user interface according to an example embodiment of the invention. In the example shown, an arrow is used to indicate the current performance trend for items in the watch list (also referred to as work list in the user interface). The arrow may point up for items in the watch list for which the performance trend is improving. The arrow may point down for items in the watch list for which the performance trend is degrading (which may warrant further action by system or system operator). Additionally, the performance trend indicator may be colored or highlighted for items needing attention, such as cases where the performance is degrading)
- “update the identified rule information based on update information received from the management terminal” (independent Claims 1,10) / “display the identified rule information output from the operation support apparatus”; (independent Claim 7)
(Yang ¶ [0060] 4th-5th sentences: statistical analysis applied to data received regarding past problems, their attempted resolutions and codes associated with the attempted resolutions, and their ultimate resolution to determine a statistical model. The statistical model transformed into rules for diagnosing and monitoring problems that may turn into chronic problems if not addressed properly. Specifically, at ¶ [0053] 3rd sentence: telecommunications management system 302 includes auto-diagnose module 304. Then ¶ [0064] 4th-6th sentences: auto-diagnose module uses the rules from rules management module 314 in combination with data received from network devices to provide diagnosis of problem in the telecom system and attempt to find [update about] root cause of the problem. auto-diagnose module 304 receives data from multiple network devices on multiple network segments. This data is used with patterns and correlations identified in historical data regarding resolution codes for past trouble tickets to accurately determine or predict root cause for a problem with a circuit. ¶ [0077] 1st-4th sentences: At decision block 434, a decision is made regarding the performance of equipment and/or circuits on the watch list. The decision may be driven by rules in rule management system 314. If the rules indicate that the equipment or circuit is performing acceptably, then the method proceed to block 414 to automatically close the trouble ticket. Yet, if rules determine that the equipment or circuit is not performing in acceptable manner, then the system return to block 410 to perform other diagnosis of the problem, using any data obtained since the problem was initially reported.
Yang ¶ [0074] If the problem is determined to be with a circuit having recurring problems, then at block 428, the system uses rules and trouble ticket data to determine if the current problem is a type that is associated with chronic problems. In some embodiments, a chronic type indicator is set based on the determination. It is possible that a problem may be recurring, but is not necessarily part of a chronic problem with a circuit. In some embodiments, the system determines an indicator of whether the problem is a potential chronic problems with high probability to repeat based on analysis and correlation of resolution codes into categories. As an example, one indicator of a potential chronic problem is when a resolution code indicating a hard down was provided and a failed circuit or equipment was fixed. A second example of an indicator of a potential chronic problem is when a resolution codes such as NTF (No Trouble Found), TOK (Test OK) or Alarm Came Clear is provided indicates that no fix was provided to a circuit or equipment. This may be indicative of unstable equipment or circuits. Other data and resolution codes may be used to determine if a problem is a potential chronic problem. If the problem is determined to be not a chronic problem, then the method stops at block 426
Yang ¶ [0075] If the problem is part of a recurring set of problems and the problem type is potentially a chronic problem, the system checks the circuit history and based on the history and the problem type, uses rules to determine a monitoring period. In some embodiments, the history logs and current problem data are used by rules to provide two categories each with a different monitoring period. A first category is used for problems in which the resolution codes indicate that failed equipment or a failed circuit was fixed. These are referred to as hard down problems. In this case, a monitoring period of relatively short monitoring period may be established for monitoring the relevant equipment and/or circuits. For example, a monitoring period of 7 days may be established. A 2nd category may be used for problems that are indicative of an unstable circuit or equipment. Examples include problems where the resolution code was Tested OK, Came Clear or No Trouble Found. In this case, a relatively longer monitoring period may be established, i.e. 30 days. The above rules are examples. Alternative embodiments may have other rules used to determine other categories and monitoring periods based on the input data)
- “transmit update information of the rule information to the operation support apparatus”
(Yang ¶ [0079] 5th,7th sentences: if the circuit trend is negative, that is, the performance is degrading, then the system… can be alerted and take proactive measures to attempt to determine the problem. This is desirable, because it can allow the system… to detect and correct a problem before it degrades to the point that a customer becomes aware of the problem) (Claim 7), “and”
- “the operation support apparatus is configured to update the identified rule information based on the update information received from the management terminal” (independent Claim 7)
(Yang ¶ [0060] 4th-5th sentences: statistical analysis applied to data received regarding past problems, their attempted resolutions and codes associated with the attempted resolutions, and their ultimate resolution to determine a statistical model. The statistical model transformed into rules for diagnosing and monitoring problems that may turn into chronic problems if not addressed properly. Specifically, at ¶ [0053] 3rd sentence: telecommunications management system 302 includes auto-diagnose module 304. Then ¶ [0064] 4th-6th sentences: auto-diagnose module uses the rules from rules management module 314 in combination with data received from network devices to provide diagnosis of problem in the telecom system and attempt to find [update about] root cause of the problem. auto-diagnose module 304 receives data from multiple network devices on multiple network segments. This data is used with patterns and correlations identified in historical data regarding resolution codes for past trouble tickets to accurately determine or predict root cause for a problem with a circuit.
Yang ¶ [0077] 1st-4th sentences: At decision block 434, a decision is made regarding the performance of equipment and/or circuits on the watch list. The decision may be driven by rules in rule management system 314. If the rules indicate that the equipment or circuit is performing acceptably, then the method proceed to block 414 to automatically close the trouble ticket. Yet, if rules determine that the equipment or circuit is not performing in acceptable manner, then the system return to block 410 to perform other diagnosis of the problem, using any data obtained since the problem was initially reported.
Yang ¶ [0074] If the problem is determined to be with a circuit having recurring problems, then at block 428, the system uses rules and trouble ticket data to determine if the current problem is a type that is associated with chronic problems. In some embodiments, a chronic type indicator is set based on the determination. It is possible that a problem may be recurring, but is not necessarily part of a chronic problem with a circuit. In some embodiments, the system determines an indicator of whether the problem is a potential chronic problems with high probability to repeat based on analysis and correlation of resolution codes into categories. As an example, one indicator of a potential chronic problem is when a resolution code indicating a hard down was provided and a failed circuit or equipment was fixed. A second example of an indicator of a potential chronic problem is when a resolution codes such as NTF (No Trouble Found), TOK (Test OK) or Alarm Came Clear is provided indicates that no fix was provided to a circuit or equipment. This may be indicative of unstable equipment or circuits. Other data and resolution codes may be used to determine if a problem is a potential chronic problem. If the problem is determined to be not a chronic problem, then the method stops at block 426
Yang ¶ [0075] If the problem is part of a recurring set of problems and the problem type is potentially a chronic problem, the system checks the circuit history and based on the history and the problem type, uses rules to determine a monitoring period. In some embodiments, the history logs and current problem data are used by rules to provide two categories each with a different monitoring period. A first category is used for problems in which the resolution codes indicate that failed equipment or a failed circuit was fixed. These are referred to as hard down problems. In this case, a monitoring period of relatively short monitoring period may be established for monitoring the relevant equipment and/or circuits. For example, a monitoring period of 7 days may be established. A 2nd category may be used for problems that are indicative of an unstable circuit or equipment. Examples include problems where the resolution code was Tested OK, Came Clear or No Trouble Found. In this case, a relatively longer monitoring period may be established, i.e. 30 days. The above rules are examples. Alternative embodiments may have other rules used to determine other categories and monitoring periods based on the input data
Claim 2 Yang teaches all the limitations at claim 1 above. Further Yang teaches
- “analyze an occurrence trend of the event from a plurality of occurrence dates and times in the specific event”; (Yang Fig.5 and ¶ [0075] 5th-7th,9th sentences: a monitoring period of relatively short monitoring period may be established for monitoring the relevant equipment and/or circuits. For example, a monitoring period of 7 days may be established. A 2nd category may be used for problems indicative of an unstable circuit or equipment. In this case, a relatively longer monitoring period may be established i.e 30 days. Also ¶ [0031]-¶ [0032] noting Degraded Minutes in which the estimated error rate exceeds 1E-6 but does not exceed 1E-3. Degraded Minutes are determined by collecting all of the Available Seconds, removing any Severely Errored Seconds grouping the result in 60-second long groups and counting a 60-second long group (minute) as degraded if the cumulative errors during the seconds present in the group exceed 1E-6. Available seconds are merely those seconds which are not unavailable as described below. Similarly,
¶ [0051] last two sentences: A special case exists when 10 or more second period crosses the 900 second statistics window boundary, as the foregoing description implies that the Severely Errored Second and Unavailable Second counters are adjusted when the Unavailable Signal State is entered. Successive “gets” of the affected dsx1IntervalSESs and dsx1IntervalUASs objects will return differing values if the first get occurs during the first few seconds of the window)
- “determine that the occurrence interval satisfies a predetermined condition in a case where a change in a trend before or after a predetermined time point is detected from the occurrence trend”; (Yang teaches several examples as follows: ¶ [0051] 1st-6th sentences: unavailable seconds calculated by counting number of seconds that the interface is unavailable. The DS1 interface is said to be unavailable from the onset of 10 contiguous SESs, or the onset of the condition leading to a failure (see Failure States). If the condition leading to the failure was immediately preceded by contiguous SESs, then the DS1 interface unavailability starts from the onset of these SESs. Once unavailable, and if no failure is present, the DS1 interface becomes available at onset of 10 contiguous seconds with no SESs. Once unavailable, and if failure is present, the DS1 interface becomes available at onset of 10 contiguous seconds with no SESs, if the failure clearing time is less than or equal to 10 seconds. If failure clearing time is more than 10 seconds, the DS1 interface becomes available at the onset of 10 contiguous seconds with no SESs, or the onset period leading to the successful clearing condition, whichever occurs later.
Yang ¶ [0061] 3rd-7th sentences: The chronic indicator in some embodiments uses data and rules to determine if the problem should be classified as chronic. For example, the trouble code data indicating the number of recurrences over a time period may be used to determine if the problem is chronic. For example, a 1st group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for same circuit in a 24 hour period. A 2nd group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for the same circuit within a week. Other trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported for same circuit 3 or more times for the same circuit within a month. ¶ [0063] Further, a continued performance indicator may be used to determine if the circuit performance is stable, improving, or degrading after a trouble is classified as chronic. The continued performance indicator may be determined based on data collected from devices associated with the circuit identified as having a chronic trouble. In some embodiments, data may be collected at periodic intervals (e.g. every 60 minutes) and used to determine whether the circuit performance is improving, or degrading. ¶ [0073] 3rd-4th sentences: a circuit may be considered to have recurring problems if it has x problems (trouble tickets) within a y day period. For example, 3 problems or trouble tickets within a 30 day period may indicate a recurring problem. In some embodiments, the number of problems or the period may vary depending on the trouble code or other data in the trouble ticket. ¶ [0077] 3rd sentence: if rules determine that the equipment or circuit is not performing in an acceptable manner, then the system may return to block 410 to perform another diagnosis of the problem, using any data that has been obtained since the problem was initially reported) “and”
- “identify, from among the plurality of pieces of rule information, rule information defining the event that is determined to satisfy the predetermined condition”
(Yang ¶ [0051] 1st-6th sentences, ¶ [0061] 3rd-7th sentences, ¶ [0063] supra, and also ¶ [0064] 4th-6th sentences auto-diagnose module uses the rules from rules management module 314 in combination with data received from network devices to provide a diagnosis [or identification] of a problem in the telecom system and attempt to find root cause of the problem. auto-diagnose module 304 receives data, from multiple network devices on multiple network segments, used with patterns and correlations identified in historical resolution codes for past trouble tickets to accurately determine or predict root cause for a problem with a circuit. ¶ [0073] 3rd-4th sentences
Yang ¶ [0077] 1st-2nd, 4th-8th sentences at decision block 434 a decision is made regarding performance of equipment and/or circuits on the watch list. The decision may be driven by rules in rule management system 314., if rules determine that the equipment or circuit is not performing in acceptable manner, then the system return to block 410 to perform another diagnosis of the problem, using any data that has been obtained since the problem was initially reported. A performance indicator may be used by the rules to determine performance. For example, a formula to calculate circuit performance may be as follows: Minutes with service degradation (errored seconds, severely errored seconds, unavailable seconds), divided by total measured minutes. Many equipment vendors provide 15 minutes of performance data. Thus, during the 15-minute interval, if a circuit or equipment experiences 3 minutes degradation (for any of the reasons listed above), the degradation would be 20% = 3/15×100%.
Yang ¶ [0078] 1st-5th sentences: rules determine acceptable and unacceptable performance, and vary based on equipment, circuit type, circuit use (voice, data, video etc.). For example, acceptable performance may be indicated if circuit performance has not degraded, improved, or not degraded beyond a certain %. Unacceptable performance may be indicated if the circuit performance has degraded past certain %. For example, a degradation of less than 5% may be acceptable while 5% or more is unacceptable. Other embodiments may use more strict consideration, e.g. a degradation of more than 1% may be considered unacceptable.
Yang ¶ [0079] 2nd-5th sentences: The graphical display provides a way for operators to rapidly determine performance trend for a circuit. different graphical indicators may be used to display current performance trend for the circuit. If circuit trend is positive that is, performing acceptably or improving, then the system continues to monitor the circuit for the monitoring period. However, if the circuit trend is negative, that is, is degrading, then the system or operator can be alerted.
Yang ¶ [0080] 3rd-8th sentences: The watch list identifies circuits and equipment (column 504), provide statistics (column 506) and provides an indicator of current performance trend (Trend column 508) for the circuit or equipment. In the example shown, an arrow in Trend column provides a graphical view of performance indicator in a user interface according to an example embodiment of the invention. In the example shown, an arrow is used to indicate the current performance trend for items in the watch list (also referred to as a work list in the example user interface). The arrow may point up for items in the watch list for which the performance trend is improving. The arrow may point down for items in the watch list for which the performance trend is degrading (an which may warrant further action by the system or system operator). The arrow may point to the side for items in which the performance trend is neutral, i.e., neither improving nor degrading. Additionally, the performance trend indicator may be colored or highlighted for items needing attention, such as cases where the performance is degrading).
Claim 3 Yang teaches all the limitations at claim 2 above. Further,
Yang teaches “determine that the occurrence interval satisfies the predetermined condition in a case where it is detected that an occurrence frequency of the specific event becomes higher than that before the predetermined time point” (Yang ¶ [0059] 3rd-4th sentences: In a significant number of cases, the problem recurs, either because the problem was not correctly diagnosed in the first instance, or because the condition, equipment or circuit causing the problem could not be determined. A telecommunications circuit which exhibits recurring problems may be referred to as a chronic circuit. ¶ [0061] 4th-6th sentences: For example the trouble code data, and the number of recurrences over a time period may be used to determine if the problem is chronic.
For example, a first group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for the same circuit in a 24-hour period. A second group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for the same circuit within a week. Other trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported for the same circuit 3 or more times for the same circuit within a month. ¶ [0063] a continued performance indicator determine if the circuit performance is improving or degrading after trouble is classified as chronic. The continued performance indicator may be determined based on data collected from devices associated with the circuit identified as having a chronic trouble. data may be collected at periodic intervals (every 60 minutes) and used to determine whether the circuit performance is improving, or degrading.
Yang ¶ [0073] 2nd-4th sentences: In some embodiments, the rules maintained by rule management system and trouble ticket data are used to determine if a circuit is exhibiting a recurring problem. As an example, a circuit may be considered to have recurring problems if it has x problems (trouble tickets) within a y day period. For example, 3 problems or trouble tickets within a 30 day period may indicate a recurring problem.
Yang ¶ [0074] 1st sentence: If the problem is determined to be with a circuit having recurring problems, then at block 428, the system uses rules and trouble ticket data to determine if the current problem is a type that is associated with chronic problems
Yang ¶ [0077] 4th-6th sentences: if rules determine that the equipment or circuit is not performing in an acceptable manner, than the system return to block 410 to perform another diagnosis of the problem, using any data that has been obtained since the problem was initially reported. A performance indicator may be used by the rules to determine performance or example, a formula to calculate circuit performance may be as follows: Minutes with service degradation (errored seconds, severely errored seconds, unavailable seconds), divided by total measured minutes. Many equipment vendors provide 15 minutes of performance data. Thus during the 15-minute interval, if a circuit or equipment experiences 3 minutes degradation (for any of reasons listed above), the degradation would be 20%= (3/15)×100%. The factors used in the determination of service degradation, i.e. errored seconds, severely errored seconds, unavailable seconds etc. may include the error conditions provided in detail above.
Yang ¶ [0078] 3rd-5th sentences: Unacceptable performance may be indicated if the circuit performance degraded past the certain %. For example, a degradation of less than 5% may be considered acceptable while 5% or more is unacceptable. Other embodiments may use more strict consideration, e.g. a degradation of more than 1% may be considered unacceptable.
Yang ¶ [0080] 7th sentence: The arrow may point down for items in the watch list for which the performance trend is degrading (which warrant further action by the system or system operator). Indeed per ¶ [0079] 5th sentence: if the circuit trend is negative, that is, the performance of the circuit is degrading, then the system or a system operator can be alerted and take proactive measures to attempt to determine the problem)
Claim 4 Yang teaches all the limitations at claim 2 above. Further,
Yang teaches “determine that the occurrence interval satisfies the predetermined condition in a case where a predetermined period of time or more than a predetermined period of time has elapsed since a last occurrence of the specific event” (Yang ¶ [0061] 3rd-7th sentences: The chronic indicator in some embodiments uses data and rules to determine if the problem should be classified as a chronic problem. For example, the trouble code data, data indicating who reported the data (e.g., customer report or auto-detected trouble) and the number of recurrences over a time period may be used to determine if the problem is chronic. For example, a 1st group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for the same circuit in a 24 hour period. A 2nd group of trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported 3 or more times for the same circuit within a week. Other trouble codes may be considered chronic if they are reported for same circuit 3 or more times for the same circuit within a month. ¶ [0063] Further, a continued performance indicator may be used to determine if the circuit performance is stable, improving, or degrading after a trouble is classified as chronic. The continued performance indicator may be determined based on data collected from devices associated with the circuit identified as having a chronic trouble. In some embodiments, data may be collected at periodic intervals (e.g., every 60 minutes) and used to determine whether the circuit performance is stable, improving, or degrading. ¶ [0073] 3rd-4th sentences: a circuit may be considered to have recurring problems if it has x problems (trouble tickets) within a y day period. For example, 3 problems or trouble tickets within a 30 day period may indicate a recurring problem. In some embodiments, the number of problems or the period may vary depending on the trouble code or other data in the trouble ticket)
Claim 6 Yang teaches all the limitations in claim 2 above. Yang further teaches
- “output a reason why the change in the occurrence trend is detected together with the identified rule information” (Yang ¶ [0059] 3rd sentence: in a significant number of cases, the problem recurs, either because the problem was not correctly diagnosed in the first instance, or because the condition, equipment or circuit causing the problem could not be determined. To this end at ¶ [0064] 4th-6th sentences: Auto-diagnose module use rules from rules management module 314 in combination with data received from network devices to provide a diagnosis of a problem in the telecom system and find the root cause of the problem. In some embodiments, auto-diagnose module 304 receives data from multiple network devices on multiple network segments. This data can be used with patterns and correlations identified in historical data regarding resolution codes for past trouble tickets in order to accurately determine or predict a root cause for a problem with a circuit. For example, see ¶ [0071] At block 410, the auto-diagnose module receives the trouble ticket data and uses the data, along with rules from rule management module 314 to provide [or output] a diagnosis of the root cause [or reason] of the problem.
Yang ¶ [0072] 1st sentence: At block 412, the results of the automatic diagnosis are analyzed to determine the next action to be taken at block 414. ¶ [0077] 7th-10th sentences: Many equipment vendors provide 15 minutes of performance data. Thus, during the 15-minute interval, if a circuit or equipment experiences 3 minutes degradation (for any of the reasons listed above), the degradation would be 20% = 3/15×100%. The factors used in the determination of service degradation, i.e., errored seconds, severely errored seconds, unavailable seconds etc. may include the error conditions provided in detail above. The above formula may be used to determine circuit performance and the result of the application of the formula may be stored and use to compare with previous results to determine circuit performance trends. Fig.5, ¶ [0078] 1st-5th sentences: rules determine acceptable and unacceptable performance, and vary based on equipment, circuit type, circuit use (voice, data, video etc.). For example, acceptable performance may be indicated if circuit performance has not degraded, improved, or not degraded beyond a certain %. Unacceptable performance may be indicated if the circuit performance has degraded past certain %. For example, a degradation of less than 5% may be acceptable while 5% or more is unacceptable. Other embodiments may use more strict consideration, e.g. a degradation of more than 1% may be considered unacceptable. ¶ [0079] 2nd-5th sentences: The graphical display provides a way for operators to rapidly determine performance trend for a circuit. For example, different graphical indicators may be used to display current performance trend for the circuit. If the circuit trend is positive that is, is performing acceptably or improving, then the system continues to monitor the circuit for the monitoring period. However, if the circuit trend is negative, that is, the performance is degrading, then the system or operator can be alerted. ¶ [0080] 3rd-8th sentences: The watch list identifies circuits and equipment (column 504), provide statistics (column 506) and provides an indicator of current performance trend (Trend column 508) for the circuit or equipment. In the example shown, an arrow in Trend column provides a graphical view of performance indicator in a user interface according to an example embodiment of the invention. In the example shown, an arrow is used to indicate the current performance trend for items in the watch list (also referred to as a work list in the example user interface). The arrow may point up for items in the watch list for which the performance trend is improving. The arrow may point down for items in the watch list for which the performance trend is degrading (an which may warrant further action by the system or system operator). The arrow may point to the side for items in which the performance trend is neutral, i.e., neither improving nor degrading. Additionally, the performance trend indicator may be colored or highlighted for items needing attention, such as cases where the performance is degrading).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 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.
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.
Claims 5,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Yang as applied to claim 2 and claim 1 above respectively, in view of
Aki et al, US 20020083169 A1, by Applicant Fujitsu hereinafter Aki. As per,
Claim 5 Yang teaches all the limitations at claim 2 above. Further,
Yang might suggests but does not explicitly recite, to clearly anticipate:
- “calculate, from the plurality of occurrence dates and times in the specific event, a first occurrence frequency of the event in a period of time before the predetermined time point and a second occurrence frequency of the event in a period of time after the predetermined time point as the occurrence trend”
- “determine whether the occurrence interval satisfies a predetermined condition or not based on a relationship between the first occurrence frequency and the second occurrence frequency” as claimed.
Aki however in analogous monitoring a network-based operation system teaches/suggest
- “calculate, from the plurality of occurrence dates and times in the specific event, a first occurrence frequency of the event in a period of time before the predetermined time point” (Aki Fig.14, S33->S34->S35 and ¶ [0030] 1st-3rd sentences: monitoring policy where web server 4 is specified as object to be monitored and its response time to web client 3 is designated as item to be monitored. Given such policy, monitoring unit 1 b measures [calculates] the specified response time (i.e. between request from web client 3 and its corresponding response from web server 4) at predetermined interval (every 10 minutes), the result being reported from monitoring unit 1b to monitoring policy changing unit 1c for evaluation. Suppose the result report indicates decreased service level of the object, i.e. web server 4. ¶ [0052] Fig.8 shows an example of the definition of item # 1 stored as record of database 20 f. The record, corresponds to what appears in the window 70. As this example shows, the response time can be classified into 4 different SL [service level] grades: Lowest, Low, Average and High. For each SL grade, database 20 f gives applicable range of response times, monitoring conditions, and other information) “and a second occurrence frequency of the event in a period of time after the predetermined time point as the occurrence trend” (Aki Fig.14, S35->S37,S42,¶ [0030] 3rd-5th sentences: Suppose the result report indicates decreased service level of the object of interest, i.e. web server 4. The monitoring policy changing unit 1 c then expands the scope of monitoring unit 1 b in an attempt to locate the cause of the problem. More specifically, it adds the response [or second] time between web server 4 and web client 5 and that between the web server 4 and a router as new monitoring items); “and”
- “determine whether the occurrence interval satisfies a predetermined condition or not based on a relationship between the first occurrence frequency and the second occurrence frequency” (Aki Fig.14, S33->35->37,42 ¶ [0030] 1st-5th sentences: monitoring policy where web server 4 is specified as object to be monitored and its response time to web client 3 is designated as item to be monitored. Given such policy, monitoring unit 1 b measures [calculates] response time (between request from web client 3 and response from web server 4) at predetermined interval (every 10 minutes), the result being reported from monitoring unit 1b to monitoring policy changing unit 1c for evaluation. Suppose the result report indicates decreased service level of the object, i.e. web server 4. Monitoring policy changing unit 1 c then expands the scope of monitoring unit 1 b in attempt to locate the cause of problem. specifically, it adds the response [or second] time between web server 4 and web client 5 and that between web server 4 and a router as new monitoring items. Then, at ¶ [0031] In case a low service level is observed for more than predetermined period, the resource setup changing unit 1 d takes an appropriate action, such as giving a higher priority to the packets from web server 4 over those from other web servers on network 2. With this corrective action, web server 4 is expected to recover its normal service level. When such service level recovery is observed, monitoring policy changing unit 1 c turns back the broadened scope of monitoring unit 1 b to the previous state, as well as increasing the monitoring interval. These changes will reduce the extra network loads caused by the monitoring operation.
Aki ¶ [0049] 2nd sentence: service level is graded High when response time (Tr) between web server Sa and web client Ca < 5 seconds.
Aki ¶ [0050] 2nd sentence: service level is graded Average when the response time (Tr) between web server Sa and web client Ca ≥ 5 seconds, but < 8 seconds. ¶ [0053] 3rd sentence: service level should be graded Low when the response time (Tr) between web server Sa and web client Ca ≥ 8 seconds, but < 15 seconds. Similar examples at ¶ [0061]- ¶ [0064], ¶ [0067] 3rd-9th sentences: Consider, for example, that the response time measures 10 seconds. In this case, the service level determination unit 20 e grades it Low, thus reducing by half the monitoring interval. That is, the interval is reduced from 10 to 5 minutes. 5 minutes later, another measurement is conducted, resulting in a response time of 13 seconds. This value is large enough for the service level determination unit 20 e to maintain the Low grade, as well as to reduce the monitoring interval again. The new monitoring interval is 3 minutes, the lower limit defined in the policy. Because the service level has been graded Low for 2 consecutive intervals, the network monitoring system 19 adds the item #2 (response time between web server Sa and router Rb) to the current set of monitoring items. The monitoring unit 20 b now begins watching this new item # 2 at default intervals (e.g., 10 minutes). ¶ [0068] After 3 minutes (i.e., the monitoring interval for item # 1), the monitoring unit 20 b measures the response time between web server Sa and client Ca again. Suppose that the measurement has yielded a response time of 15 seconds at this time. The service level determination unit 20 e now sets the SL grade to Lowest and then reduces the monitoring interval from 3 minutes to 1½ minutes. It also invokes the monitoring of item #3 (CPU utilization of web server Sa) at default intervals (i.e., ten minutes).
Aki ¶ [0069] If the service level does not improve even after 2 monitoring intervals, the network monitoring system determines that it has stayed at Lowest for 3 consecutive intervals. There is even a chance that the response time in question exceeds the threshold of 18 seconds. In those cases, the system commands router Rb to raise the priority of packet traffic to/from the web server Sa. Suppose that the system observes an improved response time of 4 seconds after the interval of 3 minutes, thanks to the raised traffic priority. Since this monitoring result is graded High, the system then doubles the monitoring interval, i.e., from 3 minutes to 6 minutes. If the SL grade continues to be High for another 2 consecutive intervals, the system further lengthens the monitoring interval, first to 12 minutes then to 24 minutes. The system also withdraws the items # 2 and #3 from the current set of monitoring items, accordingly)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Yang “apparatus” / “system” /” non-transitory medium” to have included Aki’s teachings in order to have better monitored the activities on the network, such as the one disclosed by Yang above, in a more adaptive manner by having more dynamically changed their monitoring policy according to the better assessed network conditions (Yang ¶ [0005] in view of MPEP 2143 C,D and/or G). The predictability of such modification would have been further corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Yang ¶ [0011], ¶ [0061] last sentence, in view of Aki ¶ [0008], ¶ [0122].
Alternatively, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar monitoring an network based operation system. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical and processing function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Yang in view of Aki, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or econocmailly desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 11. Yang teaches all the limitations at claim 1 above. Further,
Yang does not “convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format”.
Aki in analogous monitoring a network-based operation system teaches/suggest:
- “convert the plurality of pieces of rule information to a specific format”.
(Aki ¶ [0027] 1st sentence: la sets a monitoring policy, including various rules and criteria, on which system 1 monitors network 2. ¶ [0029] 3rd sentence: noting the policy data is referred in the monitoring policy setting unit 1a. Then at ¶ [0039] 1st sentence: The interface 19f performs protocol translation and data format conversion to allow the CPU 19a to communicate with other devices on the network 16. It also converts data formats of signals sent from the input devices 19i Similarly, ¶ [0041] 1st sentence: communication controller 20a performs protocol translation and data format conversion for the purpose of communication with other devices on the network 16).
Rationales to have modified/ combined Yang / Aki are above and reincorporated.
Conclusion
Following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
- Fang et al, LDP failure detection and recovery. IEEE Communications magazine, 42 no 10, p117-p123, Oct 31, 2004
- GB 2372674 A teaching Network management
- US 20020143917 A1 teaching Network management apparatus and method for determining network events with emphasis on its Fig.3 and associated text
- US 20090100293 A1 reciting at ¶ [0063] A frequency anomaly measure can be used to identify chronic anomalies, and may use ratios or percentages. A daily percent anomaly (shown on the right of Fig.8) is an example of a frequency anomaly measure. Daily percent anomaly would complement the daily absolute average in the sense that it could illustrate the number of anomalous hours within a day, or the number of anomalous days within a month. In general, the frequency anomaly measure can be used to illustrate the number of anomalous time periods (e.g., seconds, minutes, hours, etc.) within a larger time period (e.g., minutes, hours, days, etc.). ¶ [0064] When these two scores (i.e., daily absolute average and daily percent anomaly) are used simultaneously, they would demonstrate days with anomalous hours as well as differentiating acute vs. chronic anomalies. Acute anomalies (rarely occurring) would have high daily absolute averages and low daily percent anomalies. Acute anomalies could be illustrated by one or two high magnitude anomalies. On the other hand, chronic anomalies (frequently occurring) would have low or high daily absolute averages and high daily percent anomalies. Chronic anomalies could be illustrated by a few to a series of anomalies within a day. However, chronic anomalies do not necessarily need to have high magnitudes of exceptional anomaly scores.
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 OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
April 17th, 2026
1 Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
2 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
3 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
4 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Prosecution Insights