DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed October 29, 2025.
Claims 1, 15, 16, and 19-22 have been amended.
Claims 1-32 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of step 1, claims 1-32 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1, 21, and 22 are directed towards (as represented by claim 1), “obtaining, at a network monitoring location, an indication of a network performance event at a remote network location; responsive to obtaining the indication, initiating an automated triage process to determine whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure; and issuing an alert based on the determination of whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure”. The claims are describing a collection of information, high level analysis, and display based on the results. The claims describe providing a notification of an actual power failure based on high level analysis of a network performance event. A person would be able to receive information of a potential power failure, determine if the network performance event is an actual failure, and provide an alert based on the determination. Therefore, the claims are directed towards limitations that fall into the abstract idea grouping of mental process.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1, 21, and 22 are, “A method comprising: using at least one hardware processor (claim 1); A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions which when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a method comprising the steps of (claim 21); An apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor, coupled to the memory, and operative to (claim 22)”. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [64-70, 145-146, and 155-162]. The computer elements are merely described as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are not directed towards a technical improvement and are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of claims 1, 21, and 22 are, “A method comprising: using at least one hardware processor (claim 1); A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions which when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a method comprising the steps of (claim 21); An apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor, coupled to the memory, and operative to (claim 22)”. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [64-70, 145-146, and 155-162]. The computer elements are merely described as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are not directed towards a technical improvement and are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 25, 30, and 31 are further describing the abstract idea with additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the determination is that there is an actual power service failure, further comprising refraining from dispatching a remote technician to the remote network location based on the determination”, “wherein the determination is that there is not an actual power service failure, further comprising dispatching a remote technician to the remote network location based on the determination”, “wherein the determination is that there is an actual power service failure, further comprising dispatching a remote technician to the remote network location based on the determination”, “wherein the automated triage process includes checking whether a dying gasp message has been received from the remote network location”, “wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources including one or more of third party power outage tracking web sites, power company text messages, subscription weather services, social media, emergency alert systems, and power company web sites”, “wherein the automated triage process includes consulting at least social media, further comprising applying natural language processing with the at least one processor to understand sentiment of social media posts”, “wherein determining whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure is carried out with a rules-based correlation engine”, “wherein determining whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure is carried out with a machine learning-based correlation engine”, and “further comprising determining a type of remote technician to dispatch to the remote network location based on the determination of whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure”. The claims are further describing the collection, high level analysis, and display aspects of the identified abstract idea. The claims provide further aspects of data collection (dying grasp message, social media, and other websites), analysis elements (machine learning, correlation rules, and NLP/sentiment), and display (dispatching elements for refraining and dispatching). Though the analysis aspects are described and considered as part of the abstract idea, the elements will be considered as additional elements. The analysis techniques are described in the originally filed specification [86, 95-96, and 140]. The specification merely describes the analysis techniques as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The analysis techniques are merely describing the aspect of techniques for analysis and are not describing a technical improvement to the analysis techniques themselves. As such, the additional elements are not transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10-12, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26-29, and 32 are further additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the network monitoring location and the remote network location are connected by an enterprise wide area network”, “wherein the network monitoring location and the remote network location are connected by at least one of a hybrid fiber-coaxial network, a fiber to the curb network, and a fiber to the home network, wherein the refraining is further responsive to obtaining an indication that the actual power service failure is projected to be over in a predetermined time period”, “wherein the network monitoring location and the remote network location are connected by an enterprise wide area network”, “wherein the network monitoring location and the remote network location are connected by at least one of a hybrid fiber-coaxial network, a fiber to the curb network, and a fiber to the home network”, “wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources via API calls”, “wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources via at least one of screen scraping and synthetic web interactions”, “wherein the automated triage process includes checking at least one of a trap collector and a network monitoring toolset”, “consulting a database to determine a geographic location of the remote network location, wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources based on the determined geographic location”, “wherein the automated triage process includes: consulting at least one external resource providing a point location of a power failure; and determining whether the remote network location is geographically proximate the point location”, and “implementing a daemon, an interface routine, and a correlation engine on the at least one processor, wherein: the step of obtaining the indication of the network performance event is carried out using the daemon; the step of initiating the automated triage process is carried out using the correlation engine; and the step of issuing the alert is carried out using the interface routine”, “a plurality of distinct software modules, each of the distinct software modules being embodied on a computer-readable storage medium, and wherein the distinct software modules comprise a daemon module, a correlation engine module, and an interface routine module; wherein {claim 29}”, and “wherein the distinct software modules further comprise a database module, wherein the at least one processor is further operative to {claim 32}”. The additional elements are directed towards elements of the structure, network, and other display/computer elements. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification figures 1-9 and paragraphs [85, 89-86, 117-125, and 158-159]. The additional elements are merely describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The computer elements are not describing technical improvements to the computer elements, but rather used as tools to implement the identified abstract idea. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin et al [2022/0060017], hereafter Lewin, in view of Swamy [2023/0360151], further in view of Prasad et al [2020/0304390], hereafter Prasad.
Regarding claim 1, Lewin discloses a method comprising: using at least one hardware processor, obtaining, at a network monitoring location, an indication of a network performance event at a remote network location; responsive to obtaining the indication, initiating, using the at least one hardware processor, an automated triage process; and using the at least one hardware processor, issuing an alert based on the determination of whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure (Paragraphs [56-59 and 65-68]; Lewin discloses a power failure prediction system and issuing notifications based on the predictive power failure.).
Lewin discloses a predictive power failure system that determines notifications based on the failure, however, Lewin does not specifically teach determining from putative to actual service failure.
Swamy teaches to determine whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure (Paragraphs [62-66 and 79-83]; Swamy teaches a similar predictive power line failure system that specifically provides determination of an actual failure in terms of tagging based on false positives and dispatching based on the indication of actual faults.).
Lewin discloses a predictive power failure notification system that includes determination elements, however, Lewin does not specifically teach determination of an actual failure.
Swamy teaches a similar power failure notification system that provides determination between false positive tagging for actual faults in power line failure.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the predictive power failure notification system that includes determination elements of Lewin to include a similar power failure notification system that provides determination between false positive tagging for actual faults in power line failure as taught by Swamy since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations in terms of a utility outage and triage reporting system, however, the combination does not specifically teach a network performance event.
Prasad teaches network performance event (Paragraphs [72-74]; Prasad teaches network outage in terms of performance events to provide alerts and other triage elements (such as the triage and dispatch of the above combination).).
The combination teaches a utility outage performance and triage/dispatch system based on collected information.
The sole difference between the combination and the claimed subject matter is that the combination does not disclose a network performance event. The combination provides outage triage and performance elements for utility outages.
Prasad teaches a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network performance events to provide similar alerts and triage aspects. Prasad shows that network outage alerts and triage was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit it shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the network performance of Prasad for the utility aspects of the combination. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Swamy further teaches wherein the determination is that there is an actual power service failure, further comprising refraining from dispatching a remote technician to the remote network location based on the determination (Paragraphs [47-54]; Swamy teaches providing notifications of determined power line failure based on first responder images and damage reports provided to the utility crew. The interpretation of “refrain” is that the crew receives the report to confirm the actual failure before dispatching to confirm the damage. Further, Swamy teaches sending specific notifications based on jurisdiction so that those outside the jurisdiction of the damage power line are not dispatched based on the determined location.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 2,
Lewin further discloses wherein the network monitoring location and the remote network location are connected by an enterprise wide area network (Fig 1 and paragraph [48]; Lewin discloses that the system is connected by a wide area network (WAN).).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 2,
Lewin further discloses wherein the network monitoring location and the remote network location are connected by at least one of a hybrid fiber-coaxial network, a fiber to the curb network, and a fiber to the home network (Paragraphs [125-126]; Lewin discloses that the network connection includes optical fiber network.),
wherein the refraining is further responsive to obtaining an indication that the actual power service failure is projected to be over in a predetermined time period (Fig 11A and paragraphs [114]; Lewin discloses providing a scheduled outage that notifies the user that the outage will be completed in a scheduled time.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Swamy further teaches wherein the determination is that there is an actual power service failure, further comprising dispatching a remote technician to the remote network location based on the determination (Paragraphs [50-55 and 81-83]; Swamy discloses dispatching based on actual reports based on location and other determined fault elements.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Swamy further teaches wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources via API calls (Paragraph [34]; Swamy teaches receiving information through an API application that first responders can provide and upload information.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1, however, the combination does not specifically teach scraping or web interactions;
Prasad teaches wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources via at least one of screen scraping and synthetic web interactions (Paragraphs [63-66]; Prasad teaches a similar utility monitoring system (specific to network traffic) that provides outage information based on synthetic interactions and traffic. The combination is that Swamy/Lewin provide elements of monitoring utilities and providing alerts based on collected information and Prasad teaches the specific network traffic synthetic interaction elements to provide a similar alert.).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach synthetic web interactions.
Prasad teaches a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach synthetic web interactions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network synthetic web interactions as taught by Prasad since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Lewin discloses wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources including one or more of third party power outage tracking web sites, power company text messages, subscription weather services, social media, emergency alert systems, and power company web sites (Paragraphs [53-55]; Lewin discloses weather information and power supply information delivered as notifications for the system. Further, Swamy teaches [30-36] emergency first responder API that provides messages and other image information to be provided to the damage report.).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Lewin further discloses wherein determining whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure is carried out with a rules-based correlation engine (Paragraph [64]; Lewin teaches correlation between the collected data to provide analytic determination for the predictive disruption.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Lewin further teaches wherein determining whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure is carried out with a machine learning-based correlation engine (Paragraph [64-65]; Lewin teaches correlation and machine learning model between the collected data to provide analytic determination for the predictive disruption.).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Lewin further discloses further comprising consulting a database to determine a geographic location of the remote network location, wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources based on the determined geographic location (Fig 1 and paragraphs [53-59]; Lewin discloses user location to provide resources and repair/supply elements.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Lewin further discloses wherein the automated triage process includes: consulting at least one external resource providing a point location of a power failure; and determining whether the remote network location is geographically proximate the point location (Paragraphs [64-65]; Lewin further discloses point location to determine outage and other information within the analysis.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Swamy further teaches further comprising determining a type of remote technician to dispatch to the remote network location based on the determination of whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure (Paragraphs [46-51]; Swamy teaches dispatching specific crews based on actual failure and type of technician based on damage report.).
Regarding claim 21, Lewin discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions which when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a method comprising the steps of (Fig 1 and paragraphs [48-54]; Lewin discloses the computer elements to implement the monitoring system.):
Lewin discloses obtaining, at a network monitoring location, an indication of a network performance event at a remote network location; responsive to obtaining the indication, initiating an automated triage process; and issuing an alert based on the determination of whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure (Paragraphs [56-59 and 65-68]; Lewin discloses a power failure prediction system and issuing notifications based on the predictive power failure.).
Lewin discloses a predictive power failure system that determines notifications based on the failure, however, Lewin does not specifically teach determining from putative to actual service failure.
Swamy teaches to determine whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure (Paragraphs [62-66 and 79-83]; Swamy teaches a similar predictive power line failure system that specifically provides determination of an actual failure in terms of tagging based on false positives and dispatching based on the indication of actual faults.).
Lewin discloses a predictive power failure notification system that includes determination elements, however, Lewin does not specifically teach determination of an actual failure.
Regarding claim 22, Lewin discloses an apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor, coupled to the memory, and operative to (Fig 1 and paragraphs [48-54]; Lewin discloses the computer elements to implement the monitoring system.):
obtain, at a network monitoring location, an indication of a network performance event at a remote network location; responsive to obtaining the indication, initiate an automated triage process; and issue an alert based on the determination of whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure (Paragraphs [56-59 and 65-68]; Lewin discloses a power failure prediction system and issuing notifications based on the predictive power failure.).
Lewin discloses a predictive power failure system that determines notifications based on the failure, however, Lewin does not specifically teach determining from putative to actual service failure.
Swamy teaches to determine whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure (Paragraphs [62-66 and 79-83]; Swamy teaches a similar predictive power line failure system that specifically provides determination of an actual failure in terms of tagging based on false positives and dispatching based on the indication of actual faults.).
Lewin discloses a predictive power failure notification system that includes determination elements, however, Lewin does not specifically teach determination of an actual failure.
Regarding claim 23, the combination teach the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 22,
Lewin further discloses further comprising a network interface coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the network monitoring location is connected to the remote network location by an enterprise wide area network using the network interface (Fig 1 and paragraph [48]; Lewin discloses that the system is connected by a wide area network (WAN).).
Regarding claim 24, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 22,
Lewin further discloses further comprising a network interface coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the network monitoring location is connected to the remote network location by at least one of a hybrid fiber-coaxial network, a fiber to the curb network, and a fiber to the home network using the network interface (Paragraphs [125-126]; Lewin discloses that the network connection includes optical fiber network.).
Regarding claim 26, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 22,
Swamy further teaches wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources via API calls (Paragraph [34]; Swamy teaches receiving information through an API application that first responders can provide and upload information.).
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 22, however, the combination does not specifically teach scraping or synthetic interactions;
Prasad teaches wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources via at least one of screen scraping and synthetic web interactions (Paragraphs [63-66]; Prasad teaches a similar utility monitoring system (specific to network traffic) that provides outage information based on synthetic interactions and traffic. The combination is that Swamy/Lewin provide elements of monitoring utilities and providing alerts based on collected information and Prasad teaches the specific network traffic synthetic interaction elements to provide a similar alert.).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach synthetic web interactions.
Prasad teaches a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach synthetic web interactions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network synthetic web interactions as taught by Prasad since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin et al [2022/0060017], hereafter Lewin, in view of Swamy [2023/0360151], and Prasad et al [2020/0304390], hereafter Prasad, further in view of Meynardi et al [2012/0109545], hereafter Meynardi.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1, however, the combination does not specifically teach the dispatch determination based on actual failure;
Meynardi teaches wherein the determination is that there is not an actual power service failure, further comprising dispatching a remote technician to the remote network location based on the determination (Paragraphs [69-72]; Meynardi teaches a similar power outage notification system that specifically provides different determination elements to provide notifications. Within the combination, both Swamy and Lewin provide elements of dispatching/repairs, however, the combination does not specifically teach the determination based on not actual power failure to dispatch. Meynardi teaches providing notifications based on restoration of power and continued repair based on the outage event still being determined as a feedback look from the restoration (interpreted as not an actual failure and dispatching).).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 5,
Lewin further discloses wherein the network monitoring location and the remote network location are connected by an enterprise wide area network (Fig 1 and paragraph [48]; Lewin discloses that the system is connected by a wide area network (WAN).).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 5,
Lewin further discloses wherein the network monitoring location and the remote network location are connected by at least one of a hybrid fiber-coaxial network, a fiber to the curb network, and a fiber to the home network (Paragraphs [125-126]; Lewin discloses that the network connection includes optical fiber network.).
Claim(s) 9, 12, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin et al [2022/0060017], hereafter Lewin, in view of Swamy [2023/0360151], and Prasad et al [2020/0304390], hereafter Prasad, further in view of Deaver Sr et al [2011/0221603], hereafter Deaver.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1, however, the combination does not specifically teach a dying gasp message;
Deaver teaches wherein the automated triage process includes checking whether a dying gasp message has been received from the remote network location (Paragraph [80]; Deaver teaches a similar monitoring system that specifically describes monitoring and checking based on a dying grasp message).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach providing a dying gasp message.
Deaver teaches a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network outage using dying gasp messaging.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network outage using dying gasp messaging as taught by Deaver since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1, however, the combination does not specifically teach a trap;
Deaver teaches wherein the automated triage process includes checking at least one of a trap collector and a network monitoring toolset (Paragraph [94]; Deaver teaches providing a trap to the power line server based on a trigger event.).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach providing a trap.
Deaver teaches a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network outage using traps.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network outage using traps as taught by Deaver since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 22, however, the combination does not specifically teach a dying gasp message;
Deaver teaches wherein the automated triage process includes checking whether a dying gasp message has been received from the remote network location (Paragraph [80]; Deaver teaches a similar monitoring system that specifically describes monitoring and checking based on a dying grasp message).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach providing a dying gasp message.
Deaver teaches a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network outage using dying gasp messaging.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network outage using dying gasp messaging as taught by Deaver since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 28, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 22, however, the combination does not specifically teach a trap;
Deaver teaches wherein the automated triage process includes checking at least one of a trap collector and a network monitoring toolset (Paragraph [94]; Deaver teaches providing a trap to the power line server based on a trigger event.).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach providing a trap.
Deaver teaches a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network outage using traps.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach network outage using traps as taught by Deaver since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin et al [2022/0060017], hereafter Lewin, in view of Swamy [2023/0360151], and Prasad et al [2020/0304390], hereafter Prasad, further in view of Feng et al [2016/0110429], hereafter Feng.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 13, however, the combination does not specifically teach social media and natural language processing;
Feng teaches wherein the automated triage process includes consulting at least social media, further comprising applying natural language processing with the at least one processor to understand sentiment of social media posts (Paragraphs [27-28 and 33]; Feng teaches a similar monitoring system that specifically provides sentiment analysis for social media posts including for “network outage”.).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach providing social media sentiment analysis.
Feng teaches a similar outage monitoring system to specially teach monitoring using social media sentiment analysis.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar monitoring system to specially teach social media sentiment analysis as taught by Feng since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Claim(s) 20 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewin et al [2022/0060017], hereafter Lewin, in view of Swamy [2023/0360151], and Prasad et al [2020/0304390], hereafter Prasad, further in view of Connelly et al [2005/0210331], hereafter Connelly.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of Claim 1,
Lewin further discloses an interface routine, and a correlation engine on the at least one processor, wherein: the step of obtaining the indication of the network performance event is carried out using the daemon; the step of initiating the automated triage process is carried out using the correlation engine; and the step of issuing the alert is carried out using the interface routine (Fig 1 and paragraphs [63-66]; Lewin discloses providing a correlation analysis, interface notification, and other computer elements to provide the network performance event and alerts.).
The combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations, however, the combination does not specifically teach a daemon;
Connelly teaches further comprising implementing a daemon, the step… is carried out using the daemon (Paragraphs [49-52]; Connelly teaches a similar monitoring system that specifically teaches a daemon structure that even includes outage information and shutdown elements that include power failure and other elements (similar to the monitoring system of the combination).).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach providing daemon system elements.
Connelly teaches a similar monitoring system that specially provides daemon elements.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar monitoring system that specially provides daemon elements as taught by Connelly since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 29, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 22,
Lewin further discloses further comprising a plurality of distinct software modules, each of the distinct software modules being embodied on a computer-readable storage medium, and wherein the distinct software modules comprise a correlation engine module, and an interface routine module; wherein: the at least one processor is operative to obtain the indication; the at least one processor is operative to initiate the automated triage process by executing the correlation engine module; and the at least one processor is operative to issue the alert by executing the interface routine module (Fig 1 and paragraphs [63-66]; Lewin discloses providing a correlation analysis, interface notification, and other computer elements to provide the network performance event and alerts.).
The combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations, however, the combination does not specifically teach a daemon;
Connelly teaches a daemon module, operative to… by executing the daemon module (Paragraphs [49-52]; Connelly teaches a similar monitoring system that specifically teaches a daemon structure that even includes outage information and shutdown elements that include power failure and other elements (similar to the monitoring system of the combination).).
The combination teaches a monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations, however, the combination does not specifically teach providing daemon system elements.
Connelly teaches a similar monitoring system that specially provides daemon elements.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the monitoring and providing triage/response to event-based utility determinations of the combination the ability to include a similar monitoring system that specially provides daemon elements as taught by Connelly since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 30, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 29,
Lewin further discloses wherein the correlation engine comprises a rules-based correlation engine (Paragraph [64]; Lewin teaches correlation between the collected data to provide analytic determination for the predictive disruption.).
Regarding claim 31, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 29,
Lewin further discloses wherein the correlation engine comprises a machine learning-based correlation engine (Paragraph [64-65]; Lewin teaches correlation and machine learning model between the collected data to provide analytic determination for the predictive disruption.).
Regarding claim 32, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the apparatus of Claim 29,
Lewin further discloses wherein the distinct software modules further comprise a database module, wherein the at least one processor is further operative to consult the database to determine a geographic location of the remote network location, and wherein the automated triage process includes consulting a plurality of external resources based on the determined geographic location (Fig 1 and paragraphs [53-59]; Lewin discloses user location to provide resources and repair/supply elements.).
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed October 29, 2025 on pages 9-12 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations are directed towards a technical improvement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments discuss the claim limitations regarding a determination step whether a network performance event is an actual service failure and issuing an alert based on that determination. In terms of the consideration, the determination within the independent claim is providing an indication of a triage of an indication to an actual power service failure. There is no limitation or description in terms of the specific analysis that provides the determination. The claims are describing a high level collecting, analysis, and display based on the analysis for information. In this instance, a collection of an indication and determining to provide an alert for an actual service failure. The arguments further allege that aspects of the dependent claims render the claim eligible, however, the consideration with respect to the dependent claims is that the analysis techniques are further describing the abstract idea or utilizing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. This is with respect to the machine learning and correlation analysis that was considered as an additional element and rejected based on 2(a)(II) and 2(b) consideration. In terms of the abstract idea, claims directed towards refraining from dispatching a technician, dispatching a technician, or determining a type of technician to dispatch are further describing the abstract idea. The claims were considered individually and as a combination whole and the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. As such, claims 1-32 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-32 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
In response to the arguments filed October 29, 2025 on pages 12-18 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations are not taught by the cited prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments are with respect to the amended claim limitation, “determine whether the network performance event is an actual power service failure” and other limitations regarding the network performance event. In terms of the consideration of the previous combination, Lewin and Swamy provide utility outage triage and other elements for power failure. In terms of the consideration, the combination provides aspects of the determination and triage/alert based on the determination of an actual power failure, however, the combination does not specifically teach network performance event. Based on further consideration, Prasad teaches network performance event for similar outage determinations. As such, the 35 USC 103 rejection has been updated to be the combination of Lewin, Swamy, and Prasad.
All rejections made towards the dependent claims are maintained due to the lack of a reply by the applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action in the prior Office Action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over Lewin in view of Swamy, and, where appropriate, in further view of Prasad, Fend, Deaver, Meynardi, and Connelly.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-32 are maintaining the 35 USC 103 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Monga et al [2022/0391278] (datacenter outage prediction alert system);
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 ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629