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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is respectfully reminded of the duty under 37 C.F.R. 1.56 to disclose all pertinent information and material pertaining to the patentability of the instant invention, by submitting in a timely manner PTO-1449, Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), with the filing of an application or thereafter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, the meaning of “how it is ingested is to process performance indicator data from the network element to generate performance indicator records” and “utilizing the compiler objects to modify ingestion behavior of the normalizer without redeploying the normalizer” is unclear. The claims have been interpreted to read on the prior art as explained in those grounds of rejection, infra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 and Specification and Drawing Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter that was not described in the original specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the claims have been amended to recite “compiler objects specifying, for the network element . . . how it is ingested is to process performance indicator data from the network element to generate performance indicator records” and “utilizing the compiler objects to modify ingestion behavior of the normalizer without redeploying the normalizer.” The Examiner cannot find support for these limitations.
Similarly, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the aforementioned subject matter of claims 1-20. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Similarly, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the aforementioned limitations must be shown or canceled therefrom. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. Objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of US 11106442 (Hsiao), GB 2403829 (Wei), US 20230073670 (Wong), and WO-2025046609 (Murarka).
Regarding claim 11, Bhatnagar teaches or suggests a system (title), comprising:
one or more processors configured for executing instructions to perform operations (¶ 48) comprising:
identifying performance indicators to track for a communication network (¶ 109);
specifying, for the network, which performance indicator data is ingested by how a normalizer (¶¶ 109, 111);
a normalizer to generate performance indicator records (¶¶ 67, 109);
receiving, by the normalizer over a message bus from the network element, incoming performance indicator data according to ingestion logic (¶ 70).
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Gavan teaches or suggests generating, by a compiler, a package with compiler objects specifying how a normalizer is to process performance indicator data from the network to generate performance indicator records; and injecting the package into the normalizer for utilizing the compiler objects to modify ingestion behavior of the normalizer without redeploying the normalizer and ingest the performance indicator data (14:58-64, 18:26-31, 24:1-4, 26:30-52, 27:60-28:3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system and Gavan’s reconfiguration in order to adapt the normalizer to the requirements of an enterprise.
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Hsiao teaches or suggests a package with compiler objects specifying, for the network element, how performance indicator data is ingested (89:57-62). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, and Hsiao’s package such that a user can customize where and how data gets ingested.
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Wei teaches or suggests the injecting occurs during runtime of a normalizer, (description of Figs. 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, and Wei’s timing in order to avoid a system shut down.
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Wong teaches or suggests a first compiler object of the compiler objects defines a first ingestion path for is mapped to the first topic over which a first type of performance indicator data is to be received and processed by the first compiler object, and a second compiler object of the compiler objects defines a second ingestion path, different than the first ingestion path, for is mapped to the second topic over which a second type of performance indicator data is to be received and processed by the second compiler object (¶ 90). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, and Wong’s paths in order to accommodate different sources and sinks of data.
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Murarka teaches or suggests tracking a network element (¶ 84) and processing, utilizing the compiler objects, the incoming performance indicator data to create and persistently store the performance indicator records the performance indicator records (¶ 105).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing in order to prevent loss of the records.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the claimed limitations as explained regarding claim 11 supra, mutatis mutandis, as well as a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (¶ 149).
Regarding claim 2, Bhatnagar teaches or suggests utilizing a rule to combine a set of data items from the network element to create a single performance indicator (¶ 3).
Regarding claim 4, Bhatnagar teaches or suggests aggregating the performance indicator records over an aggregation window to create aggregated performance indicator sets; in response to receiving a request for analyzing the communication network, selecting an aggregated performance indicator set corresponding to a level of granularity related to the request; and providing the aggregated performance indicator set as a response to the request (¶ 88).
Regarding claim 7, Murarka teaches or suggests receiving a troubleshooting request for the communication network; selecting a level of granularity of performance indicator data to analyze for the troubleshooting request; selecting an aggregated performance indicator set corresponding to the level of granularity; analyzing the aggregated performance indicator set to generate a corrective action to perform for the troubleshooting request; and implementing the corrective action (¶ 128). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 11.
Regarding claim 10, Bhatnagar teaches or suggests transforming, by the normalizer, the incoming performance indicator data utilizing rules provided by the compiler to the normalizer (¶ 67).
Regarding claim 16, Murarka teaches or suggests aggregating performance indicator records over a second aggregation window to create a second aggregated performance indicator set; and utilizing the second aggregated performance indicator set to evaluate text messaging performance (¶ 108). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 11.
Claims 3, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of US 11106442 (Hsiao), GB 2403829 (Wei), US 20230073670 (Wong), WO-2025046609 (Murarka), and WO-2025009172 (Echigo).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Echigo teaches or suggests dynamically modifying the performance indicators to track by removing or adding a performance indicator during operation of the normalizer (two ¶¶s before Analysis). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing, and Echigo’s modifying in order to provide flexibility.
Regarding claim 6, Bhatnagar teaches or suggests injecting the package into the normalizer to start tracking the performance indicator as aforementioned.
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Echigo teaches or suggests in response to determining that a performance indicator is to be tracked, generating an updated package with updated compiler objects (two ¶¶s before Analysis). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of GB 2403829 (Wei), US 12281900 (Schmitt), WO-2025046609 (Murarka), and US-20230259443-A1 (Gusat).
Bhatnagar teaches or suggests injecting the package into the normalizer as aforementioned.
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Gusat teaches or suggests in response to determining that a performance indicator is no longer to be tracked, generating an updated package with updated compiler objects (¶ 59). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing, and Gusat’s generating in order to provide flexibility.
Claims 8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of GB 2403829 (Wei), US 12281900 (Schmitt), WO-2025046609 (Murarka), and BR-112017016306 (Cortes).
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Cortes teaches or suggests dynamically configuring, by the compiler during operation of a platform that includes the compiler and the normalizer, the normalizer to track a set of performance indicators for a new network element (cl. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing, and Cortes’ configuring in order to provide flexibility.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of GB 2403829 (Wei), US 12281900 (Schmitt), WO-2025046609 (Murarka), and CN-110751485 (Li).
Bhatnagar teaches or suggests aggregating the performance indicator records over an aggregation window to create an aggregated performance indicator set (¶ 88).
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Li teaches or suggests in response to receiving performance data within a threshold time after creation of the aggregated performance indicator set, adding the performance data into the aggregated performance indicator set (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing, and Li’s adding in order to provide flexibility.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of GB 2403829 (Wei), US 12281900 (Schmitt), WO-2025046609 (Murarka), and US-20230209105 (Kozak).
Bhatnagar teaches or suggests and publish the incoming performance indicator data over the message bus (¶ 70).
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Kozak teaches or suggests performing a file pull operation to retrieve incoming performance indicator data from the network element (¶ 46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing, and Kozak’s file pull in order to obtain data.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of GB 2403829 (Wei), US 12281900 (Schmitt), WO-2025046609 (Murarka), and WO-2024110160 (Ali).
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Ali teaches or suggests processing the performance indicator records to track at least one of download speeds, upload speeds, voice connections, text messaging, user equipment performance, cell tower performance, or network equipment performance (abs.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing, and Ali’s metric in order to learn relevant information.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of GB 2403829 (Wei), US 12281900 (Schmitt), WO-2025046609 (Murarka), and US-20180212819 (Zhang).
Murarka teaches or suggests aggregating performance indicator records over a first aggregation window to create a first aggregated performance indicator set (¶ 128). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 11.
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Zhang teaches or suggests utilizing the second aggregated performance indicator set to evaluate voicemail access performance (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing, and Zhang’s utilizing in order to in order to learn relevant information.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2025017649 (Bhatnagar) in view of US 9390418 (Gavan) further in view of GB 2403829 (Wei), US 12281900 (Schmitt), WO-2025046609 (Murarka), and FR-2997250 (Kovesi).
Murarka teaches or suggests aggregating performance indicator records over a first aggregation window to create a second aggregated performance indicator set (¶ 128). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 11.
Bhatnagar does not expressly disclose but Kovesi teaches or suggests utilizing the second aggregated performance indicator set to evaluate voicemail access performance (description following fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatnagar’s system, Gavan’s reconfiguration, Hsiao’s package, Wei’s timing, Wong’s paths, Murarka’s processing, and Kovesi’s utilizing in order to in order to learn relevant information.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered. The applicant argues that “Gavan does not disclose generating, by a compiler, a package with compiler objects that specifies which performance indicator data is ingested by the normalizer and how it is ingested” (Resp. 13), and “Wei does not disclose injecting compiler-generated objects into a normalizer to modify ingestion behavior . . . .” (Resp. 14.) The Examiner relies on the combined teaching of Bhatnagar, Gavan, Hsiao, Wei, Wong, and Murark (in combination with the prior art as a whole) to reject the limitations at issue. Consequently, the individual attacks on Gavan and Wei cannot establish non-obviousness.
The applicant argues that “[n]or does Gavan disclose compiler objects that define ingestion behavior on a per-network-element basis” (Resp. 13), and “nor does Wei disclose that ingestion logic itself is altered during runtime.” (Resp. 14.) The arguments are not commensurate with the limitations of the claim; the limitations are not recited in the claims being argued.
The applicant argues that “Schmitt’s parallel processing of different portions of data does not teach or suggest defining different ingestion paths via compiler objects.” (Resp. 14.) Schmitt has been replaced.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US-20190095241 executes multiple containerized instances of a software application (abs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights