DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-6,8-21 are pending. Claim 7 is cancelled.
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 .
Making Final
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The claim amendments regarding -- ‘utilizing a combination of a Breadth-First Search (BFS) directed to the plurality of alarms within a single level of the topology, and aDepth-First Search (DFS) directed to the plurality of alarms across multiple levels of the topology’ -- clearly change the literal scope of the independent and dependent claims and/or the range of equivalents for such claims. The said amendments alter the scope of the claims but do not overcome the disclosure by the prior art as shown below.
The Examiner is presenting new grounds for rejection as necessitated by the claim amendments and is thus making this action FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The Applicant presents the following argument(s) [in italics]:
…Werner appear directed to the dynamic configuration of hierarchical UI component trees for optimized query generation and rendering a component-based user interface. Werner accomplishes this by using relative data paths and recursively creating instantiators for child query nodes to derive the full structure of subgraphs needed to render the UI. By contrast, amended claim 1 now recites "correlating the plurality of alarms to data that identifies a topology of the network utilizing a combination of a Breadth-First Search (BFS) directed to the plurality of alarms within a single level of the topology, and a Depth-First Search (DFS) directed to the plurality of alarms across multiple levels of the topology." Werner's hierarchical structure-based approach relies on recursive instantiation of hierarchical components based on relative data paths, which is in contrast to the combined single level and multi-level traversal from a Breadth-First Search and Depth-First Search….
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant.
While OToole-Werner substantially disclosed the claimed invention OToole-Werner does not disclose (re. Claim 1) utilizing a combination of a Breadth-First Search (BFS) directed to the plurality of alarms within a single level of the topology, and aDepth-First Search (DFS) directed to the plurality of alarms across multiple levels of the topology
Bhambhlani Column 37 Lines 25-35 disclosed wherein algorithms can be classified broadly in two categories: DFS Algorithms and BFS Algorithms. A DFS algorithm starts with the root node and first visits all nodes of one branch as deep as possible before backtracking and then visits all other branches in a similar fashion. A BFS algorithm starts at the root node and explores all nodes at the present depth level prior to moving on to the nodes at the next depth level. In some examples, a BFS algorithm is implemented to identify all the reachable nodes from a root node.
Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 1) utilizing a combination of a Breadth-First Search (BFS) directed to the plurality of alarms within a single level of the topology, and aDepth-First Search (DFS) directed to the plurality of alarms across multiple levels of the topology (Bhambhlani-Column 37 Lines 25-35,A DFS algorithm starts with the root node and first visits all nodes of one branch as deep as possible before backtracking and then visits all other branches in a similar fashion. A BFS algorithm starts at the root node and explores all nodes at the present depth level prior to moving on to the nodes at the next depth level. In some examples, a BFS algorithm is implemented to identify all the reachable nodes from a root node.)
OToole, Werner and Bhambhlani are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding correlation of network events. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Bhambhlani into OToole-Werner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable analyze and process events in motion or “event streams.” Instead of storing data and running queries against the stored data, ESPE 800 may store queries and stream data through them to allow continuous analysis of data as it is received. (Bhambhlani-Column 25 Lines 20-25 )
Priority
The effective date of the claims described in this application is November 14, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant is respectfully reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56.
There were no information disclosure statements filed with this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,11-12,15,18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OToole (USPGPUB 20210216928) further in view of Werner (USPGPUB 20230315789) further in view of Bhambhlani (US Patent 11757725)
Regarding Claim 1
OToole Paragraph 215 disclosed wherein data source that reports updates on social media topics and trends can be valuable for the risk analytics system 106. This can be extended to sensors and camera feeds that monitor a building or campus and generate alarms (threats) that need to be ingested and analyzed to deduce the best action possible.
OToole disclosed (re. Claim 1) a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a plurality of alarms associated with a network; (OToole-Paragraph 178, police reports, traffic reports, and social media posts. The data may be ingested directly from the source or obtained from a third-party provider, Paragraph 215, sensors and camera feeds that monitor a building or campus and generate alarms (threats) that need to be ingested and analyzed to deduce the best action possible.) correlating the plurality of alarms to data to obtain a plurality of correlated events; (OToole-Paragraph 205, correlates information from all available sources (e.g. social media, utility company communications, news media, private alarm company reporting, etc.) and tailors the response dispatched to the incident based on analysis of the correlated information )
applying a model that is based on machine learning to the plurality of correlated events to generate an extended correlated event;(OToole-Paragraph 252, NLP engine 218 can be configured to categorize a threat into the standard categories supported by the system (e.g., the master list 502 as described with reference to FIG. 5). The service can be made up of an Application Programming Interface (API) layer on top of a machine learning model that represent the classifier trained to understand the standard categories)
identifying a solution to the extended correlated event; and implementing the solution as part of the network.(OToole-Paragraph 199, automating response actions)
While OToole substantially disclosed the claimed invention OToole does not disclose (re. Claim 1) correlating the plurality of alarms to data that identifies a topology of the network.
While OToole substantially disclosed the claimed invention OToole does not disclose (re. Claim 1) utilizing a combination of a Breadth-First Search (BFS) directed to the plurality of alarms within a single level of the topology, and aDepth-First Search (DFS) directed to the plurality of alarms across multiple levels of the topology.
Werner Paragraph 46 disclosed wherein agents collect data associated with the applications of interest and associated nodes and machines where the applications are being operated. Examples of the collected data may include performance data (e.g., metrics, metadata, etc.) and topology data (e.g., indicating relationship information), among other configured information.
Werner disclosed (re. Claim 1) correlating the plurality of alarms to data that identifies a topology of the network. (Werner-Paragraph 158, topology derivation service 110-13 (e.g., associated with deriving additional topology elements, entity_ grouping, relationship_derviation)
OToole and Werner are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding correlation of network events. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Werner into OToole. The motivation for the said combination would have been to dynamically configure hierarchies of components and then derive the full structure of the subgraph required to render these components from the data paths. Combined with the knowledge of the set of entities bound to the root component (the scope), this structure can then be translated into an optimized query with no redundant requests, which provides the data required to render the UI.(Werner-Paragraph 262)
OToole-Werner disclosed (re. Claim 1) utilizing a key-value pair to represent common correlated events included in the plurality of correlated events, resulting in a modified plurality of correlated events (Werner-Paragraph 160, mapping of the Open Telemetry Resource descriptor to an entity in the domain model. The Resource descriptor contains key-value pairs representing metadata about the instrumented resource (e.g., a service) that a set of observed data (e.g., metrics) refers to.)
OToole-Werner disclosed (re. Claim 1) correlating the plurality of alarms to data that identifies a topology of the network,(Werner-Paragraph 158, topology derivation service 110-13 (e.g., associated with deriving additional topology elements, entity_ grouping, relationship_derviation) the data including an indication of a first physical resource, a first physical device, a first virtual resource, a first logical resource, (Werner-Paragraph 46, monitoring applications and entities (e.g., transactions, tiers, nodes, and machines)… the collected data may include performance data (e.g., metrics, metadata, etc.) and topology data (e.g., indicating relationship information) ) a modification made relative to the first physical resource, a modification made relative to the first physical device, a modification made relative to the first virtual resource, and a modification made relative to the first logical resource;(Werner-Paragraph 58, determine what is a “normal” metric when the application or infrastructure undergoes change.)
to obtaining a plurality of correlated events based on the correlating of the plurality of alarms to the data (OToole-Paragraph 205, correlates information from all available sources (e.g. social media, utility company communications, news media, private alarm company reporting, etc.) and tailors the response dispatched to the incident based on analysis of the correlated information )
While OToole-Werner substantially disclosed the claimed invention OToole-Werner does not disclose (re. Claim 1) utilizing a combination of a Breadth-First Search (BFS) directed to the plurality of alarms within a single level of the topology, and aDepth-First Search (DFS) directed to the plurality of alarms across multiple levels of the topology.
Bhambhlani Column 37 Lines 25-35 disclosed wherein algorithms can be classified broadly in two categories: DFS Algorithms and BFS Algorithms. A DFS algorithm starts with the root node and first visits all nodes of one branch as deep as possible before backtracking and then visits all other branches in a similar fashion. A BFS algorithm starts at the root node and explores all nodes at the present depth level prior to moving on to the nodes at the next depth level. In some examples, a BFS algorithm is implemented to identify all the reachable nodes from a root node.
Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 1) utilizing a combination of a Breadth-First Search (BFS) directed to the plurality of alarms within a single level of the topology, and aDepth-First Search (DFS) directed to the plurality of alarms across multiple levels of the topology (Bhambhlani-Column 37 Lines 25-35,A DFS algorithm starts with the root node and first visits all nodes of one branch as deep as possible before backtracking and then visits all other branches in a similar fashion. A BFS algorithm starts at the root node and explores all nodes at the present depth level prior to moving on to the nodes at the next depth level. In some examples, a BFS algorithm is implemented to identify all the reachable nodes from a root node.)
OToole, Werner and Bhambhlani are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding correlation of network events. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Bhambhlani into OToole-Werner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable analyze and process events in motion or “event streams.” Instead of storing data and running queries against the stored data, ESPE 800 may store queries and stream data through them to allow continuous analysis of data as it is received. (Bhambhlani-Column 25 Lines 20-25 )
Regarding Claim 18
Claim 18 (re. method) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2
OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 2) wherein the data indicates that the topology of the network is arranged as a plurality of levels.(Werner-Paragraph 79, entirety of artifacts represented in each layer and their relationships can be described—independent of any digital representation—in a domain model.)
Regarding Claim 3
OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 3) wherein each correlated event of the plurality of correlated events is associated with a respective level of the plurality of levels. (Werner-Paragraph 79, entirety of artifacts represented in each layer and their relationships can be described—independent of any digital representation—in a domain model.)
Regarding Claim 5
OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 5) wherein a first alarm of the plurality of alarms is generated by a first device of the network. (Werner-Paragraph 54, collect hardware-related performance statistics from the servers)
Regarding Claim 11
OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 11) wherein the operations further comprise: subsequent to the implementing of the solution as part of the network, (OToole-Paragraph 199, automating response actions) obtaining a second plurality of alarms associated with the network; (OToole-Figure 2, ingest threats received from multiple different data sources ) correlating the second plurality of alarms to the data that identifies the topology of the network (Werner-Paragraph 158, topology derivation service 110-13 (e.g., associated with deriving additional topology elements, entity_ grouping, relationship_derviation) to obtain a second plurality of correlated events, the second plurality of correlated events being at least partially different from the plurality of correlated events; (OToole-Paragraph 309, event processor 1310 can compare the second threat with the first threat to determine if there is an association, i.e., both threats describe the same incident )
applying the model to the second plurality of correlated events to generate a second solution that is different from the solution; and implementing the second solution as part of the network.(Werner-Paragraph 145, a solution can build on top of another solution, amend, and customize it. The final experience of tenant A user is therefore the result of the layering of the three subscribed solutions ,Paragraph 144, For each tenant (e.g., “A” or “B”), only the models that they are subscribed to are being used in the course of data collection, ingestion, processing and consumption, hence the experience of the tenant A user 832 in FIG. 8 is different from that of the tenant B user 834. )
Regarding Claim 12
OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 12) subsequent to the implementing of the solution as part of the network, (OToole-Paragraph 199, automating response actions) obtaining a second plurality of alarms associated with the network; correlating the second plurality of alarms to second data that identifies a second topology of the network to obtain a second plurality of correlated events, the second plurality of correlated events being at least partially different from the plurality of correlated events and the second topology being different from the topology; (OToole-Paragraph 217, applying the sub-category's spatial and temporal parameters to the subject alert in order to locate neighbor alerts with temporal and spatial data falling within those parameters)
applying the model to the second plurality of correlated events to generate a second solution that is different from the solution; and implementing the second solution as part of the network. (Werner-Paragraph 145, a solution can build on top of another solution, amend, and customize it. The final experience of tenant A user is therefore the result of the layering of the three subscribed solutions ,Paragraph 144, For each tenant (e.g., “A” or “B”), only the models that they are subscribed to are being used in the course of data collection, ingestion, processing and consumption, hence the experience of the tenant A user 832 in FIG. 8 is different from that of the tenant B user 834. )
Regarding Claim 15
OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 15) modifying the model based on the implementing of the solution, resulting in a modified model; (Werner-Paragraph 145, a solution can build on top of another solution, amend, and customize it.)
obtaining a second plurality of alarms associated with the network; correlating the second plurality of alarms to the data that identifies the topology of the network to obtain a second plurality of correlated events;
applying the modified model to the second plurality of correlated events to generate a second solution that is different from the solution; (Werner-Paragraph 145, a solution can build on top of another solution, amend, and customize it. The final experience of tenant A user is therefore the result of the layering of the three subscribed solutions ,Paragraph 144, For each tenant (e.g., “A” or “B”), only the models that they are subscribed to are being used in the course of data collection, ingestion, processing and consumption, hence the experience of the tenant A user 832 in FIG. 8 is different from that of the tenant B user 834. )
Regarding Claim 19
OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 19) identifying, by the processing system, the solution based on an analysis of a record of data pertaining to the network, (OToole-Paragraph 199, automating response actions) wherein the network includes a social media network, and wherein the plurality of alarms is based on a monitoring of content or messages contributed to the social media network by one or more users of the social media network. (OToole-Paragraph 205, correlates information from all available sources (e.g. social media, utility company communications, news media, private alarm company reporting, etc.) and tailors the response dispatched to the incident based on analysis of the correlated information )
and implementing the second solution as part of the network. (Werner-Paragraph 145, a solution can build on top of another solution, amend, and customize it. The final experience of tenant A user is therefore the result of the layering of the three subscribed solutions ,Paragraph 144, For each tenant (e.g., “A” or “B”), only the models that they are subscribed to are being used in the course of data collection, ingestion, processing and consumption, hence the experience of the tenant A user 832 in FIG. 8 is different from that of the tenant B user 834. )
Claim(s) 4,8-10,14,16-17,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OToole (USPGPUB 20210216928) further in view of Werner (USPGPUB 20230315789) further in view of Bhambhlani (US Patent 11757725) further in view of Menzel (USPGPUB 20220319304)
Regarding Claim 4
While OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani substantially disclosed the claimed invention OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani does not disclose (re. Claim 4) wherein the extended correlated event is separated from at least one correlated event of the plurality of correlated events by at least two levels.
Menzel Paragraph 21 disclosed identifying events (e.g., power events) in the electrical system, and alarms triggered in response to the identified events and/or other events (e.g., events other than the identified power events such as HVAC control changes or manufacturing SCADA process control actions or detected status changes on loads) in (or related to) the electrical system.
Menzel disclosed (re. Claim 4) wherein the extended correlated event is separated from at least one correlated event of the plurality of correlated events by at least two levels. (Menzel-Figure 1B,Paragraph 143, one IED is installed at the first metering location M.sub.1, at least one IED is installed at the second metering location M.sub.2, IEDs installed at metering locations M.sub.7, M.sub.8, Paragraph 125, analyze and share energy-related information (e.g., measurement data, derived data, event data and additional information, results of event analysis, event profiles, etc.) at any desired position along the electrical system, including positions along the grid, between the utility and a facility, and within the facility. Each of the IEDs may be installed at a respective metering point or location of a plurality of metering points or locations in the electrical system)
OToole and Menzel are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding correlation of network events. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Menzel into OToole. The motivation for the said combination would have been to improve quality of mitigation and remediation activities due to faster identification of an issue's cause. This reduction of alarm nuisance behavior may help a maintenance engineer correctly focus on the impact analysis and reduce the data clutter (Menzel-Paragraph 151)
Regarding Claim 8
OToole-Werner-Menzel disclosed (re. Claim 8) wherein a second alarm of the plurality of alarms is generated based on a user input.(Menzel-Paragraph 156, types of events may include, for example, manufacturing process(es) or load-related event(s) detected and signaled by manufacturing equipment via I/O signal or SCADA system, HVAC-related event(s), including user over-ride settings of BMS, overcurrent, peak demand, low or leading power factor, I/O input(s) indicating a change on or related to the electrical system.)
Regarding Claim 9
OToole-Werner-Menzel disclosed (re. Claim 9) wherein the user input is obtained from an engineer or a technician that is associated with the network. (Menzel-Paragraph 156, types of events may include, for example, manufacturing process(es) or load-related event(s) detected and signaled by manufacturing equipment via I/O signal or SCADA system, HVAC-related event(s), including user over-ride settings of BMS, overcurrent, peak demand, low or leading power factor, I/O input(s) indicating a change on or related to the electrical system.)
Regarding Claim 10
OToole-Werner-Menzel disclosed (re. Claim 10) wherein the user input is obtained from a user equipment that is communicatively coupled to the network, the user equipment being associated with a subscriber to the network.(OToole-Paragraph 215, data sources 102 can either be first party and/or third party, i.e., platforms and/or from equipment owned by an entity and/or generated by data sources subscribed to by an entity.)
Regarding Claim 14
OToole-Werner-Menzel disclosed (re. Claim 14) wherein the operations further comprise: generating the model based on a use of a second plurality of alarms and a user input. (Menzel-Paragraph 156, types of events may include, for example, manufacturing process(es) or load-related event(s) detected and signaled by manufacturing equipment via I/O signal or SCADA system, HVAC-related event(s), including user over-ride settings of BMS, overcurrent, peak demand, low or leading power factor, I/O input(s) indicating a change on or related to the electrical system.)
Regarding Claim 16
OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani disclosed (re. Claim 16) operations comprising:
mapping a plurality of alarms associated with a communication system to a topology of the communication system (Werner-Paragraph 158, topology derivation service 110-13 (e.g., associated with deriving additional topology elements, entity_ grouping, relationship_derviation) to identify a plurality of correlated events; (OToole-Paragraph 205, correlates information from all available sources (e.g. social media, utility company communications, news media, private alarm company reporting, etc.) and tailors the response dispatched to the incident based on analysis of the correlated information )
identifying a solution to the issue based on the identifying of the root cause; and implementing the solution. (Werner-Paragraph 145, a solution can build on top of another solution, amend, and customize it. The final experience of tenant A user is therefore the result of the layering of the three subscribed solutions ,Paragraph 144, For each tenant (e.g., “A” or “B”), only the models that they are subscribed to are being used in the course of data collection, ingestion, processing and consumption, hence the experience of the tenant A user 832 in FIG. 8 is different from that of the tenant B user 834. )
While OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani substantially disclosed the claimed invention OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani does not disclose (re. Claim 16) identifying a root cause of an issue in the communication system based on the plurality of correlated events;
Menzel disclosed (re. Claim 16) identifying a root cause of an issue in the communication system based on the plurality of correlated events (Menzel-Paragraph 322, adding root source identification, impact evaluation, location analysis, direction detection, Paragraph 323, determine issue(s) associated with the electrical system, such as the origin(s), source(s), cause(s),, Figure 18, Paragraph 405, cause(s) and/or origin(s) of the identified event(s) and/or the identified alarm(s) is/are identified. Cause, in this context, is what initiated the event.)
OToole and Menzel are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding correlation of network events. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Menzel into OToole-Werner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to improve quality of mitigation and remediation activities due to faster identification of an issue's cause. This reduction of alarm nuisance behavior may help a maintenance engineer correctly focus on the impact analysis and reduce the data clutter (Menzel-Paragraph 151)
Regarding Claim 17
OToole-Werner-Menzel disclosed (re. Claim 17) wherein each correlated event of the plurality of correlated events is identified based on an identification of a common node of the communication system that is associated with at least two alarms of the plurality of alarms, (Menzel-Figure 1B,Paragraph 143, Connection 1 is a physical point in the electrical system where energy flow (as measured at M.sub.1 by the at least one IED installed at M.sub.1) diverges to provide energy to the left electrical system branch (associated with metering locations M.sub.3, M.sub.4, M.sub.7, M.sub.8) and the right electrical system branch (associated with metering locations M.sub.2, M.sub.5, M.sub.6, M.sub.9, M.sub.10) ) and wherein the identifying of the root cause of the issue is based on extending the plurality of correlated events to a second common node of the communication system.
Regarding Claim 20
OToole-Werner-Menzel disclosed (re. Claim 20) wherein the network includes a utility network that provides electrical power, water, sewer services, or trash services.( Menzel-Paragraph 156, types of events may include, for example, manufacturing process(es) or load-related event(s) detected and signaled by manufacturing equipment via I/O signal or SCADA system, HVAC-related event(s), including user over-ride settings of BMS, overcurrent, peak demand, low or leading power factor, I/O input(s) indicating a change on or related to the electrical system.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OToole (USPGPUB 20210216928) further in view of Werner (USPGPUB 20230315789) further in view of Bhambhlani (US Patent 11757725) further in view of Kewitsch (USPGPUB 20230300499)
Regarding Claim 13
While OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani substantially disclosed the claimed invention OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani does not disclose (re. Claim 13) wherein the topology is based on a use of a first communication device and a first function in the network, and wherein the second topology is based on: a removal of the first communication device from the network, a removal of the first function from the network, an addition of a second communication device to the network, an addition of a second function in the network, or any combination thereof.
Kewitsch Figure 5A-5B,Paragraph 5 disclosed Network Topology Manager (NTM) and automated, robotic patch-panels and cross-connects are key devices to connect all networked devices within a computer network so that routine management functions can be performed hands-free.
Kewitsch disclosed (re. Claim 13) wherein the topology is based on a use of a first communication device and a first function in the network, (Kewitsch-Paragraph 34, connecting a tail cable through the NTM to receive the OTDR pulses returning from the first customer cage , Paragraph 203, NTM injects optical test equipment and sensors onto any link by moving a corresponding interconnect to one of the test ports, collecting diagnostics and ultimately determining the root case (FIG. 5B).) and wherein the second topology is based on: a removal of the first communication device from the network, a removal of the first function from the network, an addition of a second communication device to the network, an addition of a second function in the network, or any combination thereof. (Kewitsch-Paragraph 34, launching OTDR pulses down the fiber-optic link in the opposite direction and measuring the backreflected light signal to generate a second set of data; and processing the first set of data and the second set of data to determine insertion loss, back reflection, and location of loss events along the fiber-optic link,Paragraph 251, topology discovery process 1500, )
OToole and Kewitsch are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding correlation of network events. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Kewitsch into OToole. The motivation for the said combination would have been to improve availability and eliminate the delay of on-site technicians to restore services. Fast mitigation of outages by the data center operator reduces financial losses.(Kewitsch-Paragraph 246)
Claim(s) 6,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OToole (USPGPUB 20210216928) further in view of Werner (USPGPUB 20230315789) further in view of Bhambhlani (US Patent 11757725) further in view of Yang (USPGPUB 20120155321)
Regarding Claim 6
While OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani substantially disclosed the claimed invention OToole-Werner-Bhambhlani does not disclose (re. Claim 6) wherein the first device includes a server, a router, a gateway, a switch, an access point, a base station, or any combination thereof, and wherein the first device performs a monitoring of second data and generates the first alarm based on the monitoring.
Yang Paragraph 86 disclosed wherein when a control card failure occurs in, say, eNodeB 501 as illustrated in FIG. 6, eNodeB 501 will trigger and originate a control card failure alarm and an eNodeB unreachable alarm.
Yang disclosed (re. Claim 6) wherein the first device includes a server, a router, a gateway, a switch, an access point, a base station, or any combination thereof, and wherein the first device performs a monitoring of second data and generates the first alarm based on the monitoring. (Yang-Paragraph 86,when a control card failure occurs in, say, eNodeB 501 as illustrated in FIG. 6, eNodeB 501 will trigger and originate a control card failure alarm and an eNodeB unreachable alarm.)
OToole,Werner and Yang are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding correlation of network events. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Yang into OToole-Werner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable correlating a plurality of alarms from a plurality devices down to a single device which is the root cause of a service trouble in the LTE network.(Yang-Paragraph 16)
Regarding Claim 21
OToole-Werner-Yang disclosed (re. Claim 21) wherein the key-value pair includes a key that is representative of a type of a device and a value that is an identifier of the device, (Yang-Table 2,Paragraph 42, NodeType field, NodeID field ) and wherein the utilizing of the key-value pair includes appending a third alarm generated by a third device to an open correlated event included in the plurality of correlated events.(Yang-Paragraph 86, The multiple alarms indicating the same control card failure will be correlated by the TBTDCE to identify that eNodeB 501 is the source of the problem. The eNodeB alarm will be treated as the parent alarm and the MME as well as the SGW alarms will be treated as child alarms. The parent alarm identified can be forwarded to the NMS for further actions.)
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREG C BENGZON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444