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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In response to the arguments and the accompanying claim amendments, an updated grounds of rejection based on Nataraj (US-20210397177-A1) is presently presented.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori (US-20230370338-A1) in view of Nataraj (US-20210397177-A1) and Lin (US-8049533-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Shori shows A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor (Fig. 4); and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system (Fig. 4), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a model (e.g., via training the model, as discussed in [15,18-19]) in respect of voice communications ([11] discussing “converged voice . . . services”, [12] discussing a “voice call”); obtaining data representative of a voice communication session ([14] discussing “error logs, service failures and the performance metrics . . . can be monitored”, [20] discussing “observed error patterns”, [32] discussing agents configured to monitor “requests, performance metrics, errors, etc.”; comparing the data to the model to generate a prediction that the data is subject to degradation ([11], see “predict service degradation”, [15], see “ML models may perform predictive . . . monitoring and detection of service degradation”, with further discussion in [20]); based on the prediction, identifying a remediation to address the degradation ([11], see “analyze, restart, and/or repair particular components”, [48] see “suggested repairs”); and implementing the remediation ([49] see “repair one or more services or systems”, with further discussion in [33,41,48-51]]).
Shori does not show: performing a rule check against the data to discard erroneous data and to filter spurious data or anomalies, resulting in rule checked data; and comparing utilizing the rule checked data. Nataraj shows: performing a rule check against the data to discard erroneous data and to filter spurious data or anomalies, resulting in rule checked data ([30,38] and Fig. 2A discussed where “acquired data is preprocessed” which includes steps to “remove invalid data, anomalies and the like”); and comparing utilizing the rule checked data (see the discussion in [30,38] and Figs. 1 and 2A showing where the DAQ system that performs the preprocessing receives the raw input, preprocesses it and the provides it to the fault detection system for further analysis; as discussed in [58,66], the preprocessed data is used to “provide a prediction” and “identify faults”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the monitoring and remediation techniques of the Shori with the data filtering and fault prediction steps of Nataraj in order to reduce errors in subsequent processing steps utilizing raw input data (Nataraj, [38]). The above combination does not show wherein the implementing of the remediation comprises adjusting: a receiver sensitivity level, a frequency band that is used, or any a combination thereof. Lin shows wherein the implementing of the remediation comprises adjusting: a receiver sensitivity level, a frequency band that is used, or any a combination thereof (col. 2 line 47 – col. 3 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the monitoring and remediation techniques of Shori with the sensitivity adjustments of Lin in order to better ensure a desirable balance between reception performance and noise levels. Regarding claim 2, the above combination further shows wherein the operations further comprise: performing a root cause analysis to identify a source of the degradation (Shori, [20]) resulting in an identified source (Shori, [70]).
Regarding claim 3, the above combination further shows wherein the identifying of the remediation is based on the identified source (Shori, [48-52]).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination further shows wherein the remediation includes an adjustment to a configuration of a resource (Shori, [49-51])) of a network or a system that supports the voice communication session (Shori, [50]).
Regarding claim 7, the above combination further shows wherein the voice communication session involves a user equipment (Shori, [34-35]), and wherein the implementing of the remediation comprises applying the remediation to the user equipment, a base station, a server (Shori, [48-51]), or any combination thereof.
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Nataraj and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tapia (US-10063406-B2).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination shows performing of root cause analysis (Shori, [20]). The above combination does not show: modifying the model based on the analysis resulting in a modified model that is different from the model. Tapia shows: modifying the model based on the analysis resulting in a modified model that is different from the model (col. 12 lines 43-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the model updating of Tapia in order to improve system accuracy and efficiency via improvements in the model utilized by said system.
Regarding claim 5, Shori in view of Nataraj, Lin, and Tapia further show obtaining second data representative of a second voice communication session (Shori, Fig. 5, note this process repeats as discussed in [61]); comparing the second data to the modified model (Tapia, col. 12 lines 43-67) to generate a second prediction that the second data is subject to degradation (Shori, [61,67]), based on the second prediction, identifying a second remediation to address the degradation in the second data (Shori, [11,48-50]); and implementing the second remediation (Shori, [33,41,61] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Shori in view of Nataraj and Lin show wherein the prediction that the data is subject to degradation comprises a first prediction that first data of the data is subject to a first degradation included in the degradation (Shori, [48,65] and Fig. 5). The above combination does not show: wherein the first data is associated with an uplink direction. Tapia shows wherein the first data is associated with an uplink direction (col. 22 line 54 – col. 23 line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the uplink data considered by Tapia in order to better ensure a full picture of the devices being evaluated is processed and considered.
Regarding claim 9, Shori in view of Nataraj, Lin, and Tapia further show wherein the prediction that the data is subject to degradation comprises a second prediction that second data of the data is subject to a second degradation included in the degradation (Shori, [48,61,65] and Fig. 5), and wherein the second data is associated with a downlink direction (Tapia, col. 22 line 54 – col. 23 line 4).
Claims 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Nataraj and Lin as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Vasseur (US-20160020969-A1).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination shows claim 1, including where the data is arranged as a plurality of packets (Shori, [1,29,53]). The above combination does not show wherein the degradation includes a loss of a packet included in the plurality of packets. Vasseur shows wherein the data is arranged as a plurality of packets, and wherein the degradation includes a loss of a packet included in the plurality of packets ([21,62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the packet monitoring of Vasseur in order to better ensure the network monitoring and analysis is performed holistically across multiple levels of traffic granularity (by session, by packet, etc.).
Regarding claim 11, Shori in view of Nataraj and Lin show claim 1, including where the data is arranged as a plurality of packets (Shori, [1,29,53]). The above combination does not show wherein the degradation includes a delay in a reception of a packet included in the plurality of packets relative to a transmission of the packet in an amount that exceeds a threshold. Vasseur shows wherein the data is arranged as a plurality of packets, and wherein the degradation includes a delay in a reception of a packet included in the plurality of packets relative to a transmission of the packet in an amount that exceeds a threshold ([21,62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the packet monitoring of Vasseur in order to better ensure the network monitoring and analysis is performed holistically across multiple levels of traffic granularity (by session, by packet, etc.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Nataraj and Lin as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chaum (US-20060218636-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shori in view of Nataraj and Lin show the model (Shori, [1, 15, 18-19]). The above combination does not show consideration of patterns in terms of silence between speech. Chaum shows consideration of patterns in terms of silence between speech ([38]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the data analysis of Chaum in order to enable detection of additional types of quality degradation, improving the number of situations in which the system can respond and attempt to mitigate a problem.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Nataraj and Lin as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mimura (US-20010021176-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shori in view of Nataraj and Lin the model (Shori, [11, 15, 18-19]). The above combination does not show consideration of an expected number of packets per unit time. Mimura shows consideration of an expected number of packets per unit time ([40]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the data analysis of Mimura in order to enable detection of additional types of quality degradation, improving the number of situations in which the system can respond and attempt to mitigate a problem.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Nataraj, Vasseur, Lin, and Huang (US-20230171614-A1).
Regarding claim 14, Shori shows a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: obtaining first data from a voice communication session (Figs. 5 and 6);
analyzing the data (Figs. 5 and 6) determining, based on the analyzing, that the first data deviates from a model in a first amount that is greater than a threshold ([48,66-69]); and based on the determining, implementing a modification such that second data of the voice communication session deviates from the model in a second amount that is less than the threshold ([48-49,61] and Fig. 5). Shori does not show: performing a rule check against the data to discard erroneous data and to filter spurious data or anomalies, resulting in rule checked data; and analyzing and comparing utilizing the rule checked data. Nataraj shows: performing a rule check against the data to discard erroneous data and to filter spurious data or anomalies, resulting in rule checked data ([30,38] and Fig. 2A discussed where “acquired data is preprocessed” which includes steps to “remove invalid data, anomalies and the like”); and analyzing and comparing utilizing the rule checked data (see the discussion in [30,38] and Figs. 1 and 2A showing where the DAQ system that performs the preprocessing receives the raw input, preprocesses it and the provides it to the fault detection system for further analysis; as discussed in [58,66], the preprocessed data is used to “provide a prediction” and “identify faults”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the monitoring and remediation techniques of the Shori with the data filtering and fault prediction steps of Nataraj in order to reduce errors in subsequent processing steps utilizing raw input data (Nataraj, [38]).
The above combination does not show consideration in terms of at least one of packet loss or packet delay. Vasseur shows consideration in terms of at least one of packet loss or packet delay ([21,62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shori with the packet monitoring of Vasseur in order to better ensure the network monitoring and analysis is performed holistically across multiple levels of traffic granularity (by session, by packet, etc.).
The above combination does not show wherein the implementing of the modification comprises adjusting receiver sensitivity level.
Lin shows wherein the implementing of the modification comprises adjusting receiver sensitivity level (col. 2 line 47 – col. 3 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the monitoring and remediation techniques of Shori with the sensitivity adjustments of Lin in order to better ensure a desirable balance between reception performance and noise levels.
The above combination does not show consideration of a transmission power level and a frequency band that is used. Huang shows consideration of a transmission power level ([29,37]]) and a frequency band that is used (Abstract, [40])). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination’s network and communication performance monitoring with the factors considered by Huang in order to further expand the number of factors considered, thus increasing the likelihood that the selected mitigation techniques will have the most desirable impact.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Nataraj, Vasseur, Lin, and Huang, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Barbu (US-20220124668-A1).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination shows wherein the voice communication session involves a first user equipment. The above combination does not show wherein the implementing of the modification comprises handing over the voice communication session from a first base station to a second base station. Barbu shows wherein the implementing of the modification comprises handing over the voice communication session from a first base station to a second base station ([21,41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination’s network monitoring and remediation techniques with the base station selection of Barbu in order to ensure a malfunctioning piece of hardware (e.g., a base station) does not continue to degrade system performance after an issue is detected.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Nataraj, Lin, and Huang.
Regarding claim 18, Shori shows a method, comprising: analyzing, by a processing system including a processor, at least first data from a voice communication session (Figs. 5 and 6); generating, by the processing system and based on the analyzing, a prediction that second data associated with the voice communication session is likely to experience degradation ([11,15,20]) in an amount greater than a threshold ([48-49,61]); identifying, by the processing system and based on the generating, a source of the degradation ([48-52]); and implementing, by the processing system and based on the identifying, a modification to at least one of a user equipment or a network resource ([11, 33, 41]). Shori does not show: wherein the first data is an output of a rule check performed against the data, and wherein the performance of the rule check discards erroneous data and filters spurious data and anomalies.
Nataraj shows: wherein the first data is an output of a rule check performed against the data, and wherein the performance of the rule check discards erroneous data and filters spurious data and anomalies. ([30,38] and Fig. 2A discussed where “acquired data is preprocessed” which includes steps to “remove invalid data, anomalies and the like”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the monitoring and remediation techniques of the Shori with the data filtering and fault prediction steps of Nataraj in order to reduce errors in subsequent processing steps utilizing raw input data (Nataraj, [38]).
Shori does not show wherein the implementing of the modification comprises adjusting receiver sensitivity level.
Lin shows wherein the implementing of the modification comprises adjusting receiver sensitivity level (col. 2 line 47 – col. 3 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the monitoring and remediation techniques of Shori with the sensitivity adjustments of Lin in order to better ensure a desirable balance between reception performance and noise levels.
The above combination does not show consideration of a transmission power level and a frequency band that is used. Huang shows consideration of a transmission power level ([29,37]]) and a frequency band that is used (Abstract, [40])). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination’s network and communication performance monitoring with the factors considered by Huang in order to further expand the number of factors considered, thus increasing the likelihood that the selected mitigation techniques will have the most desirable impact.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Natraj, Lin, and Huang, as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Vasseur.
Regarding claim 19, the above combination shows claim 18. The above combination does not show: obtaining, by the processing system, the first data from a probe. Vasseur shows obtaining, by the processing system, the first data from a probe (Fig. 12, [33,59-60]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination’s network and communication performance monitoring with the data collection techniques of Vesseur in order to better ensure reliable collection network status data, improving the reliability of the analysis and monitoring processes.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Natraj, Lin, and Huang, as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Bruner (US-20140313902-A1).
Regarding claim 20, the above combination shows claim 18. The above combination does not show: wherein the at least first data includes third data, wherein the first data is associated with a data plane, and wherein the third data is associated with a control plane. Bruner shows wherein the at least first data includes third data, wherein the first data is associated with a data plane, and wherein the third data is associated with a control plane ([91,102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination’s network and communication performance monitoring with the data collection techniques of Bruner in order to facilitate a broader understanding of the performance and behavior illustrated in the monitored network.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Natraj, Vasseur, Lin, and Huang, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Earnshaw (US-7463616-B1).
Regarding claim 21, the above combination shows claim 14. The above combination does not show wherein the implementing of the modification further comprises adjusting a time slot that is used and a modulation/demodulation scheme that is used. Earnshaw shows wherein the implementing of the modification further comprises adjusting a time slot that is used and a modulation/demodulation scheme that is used (col. 7 lines 47-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the adjustments considered by Earnshaw in order to ensure additional factors for improving performance are considered, and thus better ensure the resultant remediation process is optimal.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shori in view of Natraj, Vasseur, Lin, Huang, and Earnshaw, as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Vandikas (US-20220150131-A1).
Regarding claim 22, the above combination shows claim 21. The above combination does not show wherein the implementing of the modification further comprises adjusting an encryption/decryption scheme that is used. Vandikas shows wherein the implementing of the modification further comprises adjusting an encryption/decryption scheme that is used ([106,110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above combination with the adjustments considered by Vandikas in order to ensure additional factors for improving performance are considered, and thus better ensure the resultant remediation process is optimal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
Zhang (US-20220292074-A1).
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 JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights