CTNF 18/591,128 CTNF 96430 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites: An apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: discover, by a drift detection device executing on the one or more processors , a mesh of nodes topology ; generate a plurality of subgraphs using the mesh of nodes topology, wherein each of the plurality of subgraphs comprises a portion of a plurality of nodes of the mesh of nodes ; select a subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs; calculate a Drift-subgraph (D sg ) value for the subgraph using a plurality of subgraph incident parameter values; and calculate a drift value (D) using the D sg value and an Incident likelihood (I L ) value, wherein the drift value indicates whether drift occurred in the subgraph. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine). Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. For example, the limitations of “a discover a mesh of nodes topology (see paras. [0016], [0038], [0040] of instant application)” and “select a subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs (para. [0017] of instant application)” are mental process. The limitations of “discover a mech of nodes topology” and “select a subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs” corresponds to “observation” and “judgment” in mental processes, respectively. The limitation of “generate a plurality of subgraphs using the mesh of nodes topology, wherein each of the plurality of subgraphs comprises a portion of a plurality of nodes of the mesh of nodes (para. [0014], [0044]-[0046], [0050] of instant application),” “calculate a Drift-subgraph (D sg ) value for the subgraph using a plurality of subgraph incident parameter values (paras. [0018], [0021], [0045]),” and “calculate a drift value (D) using the D sg value and an Incident likelihood (I L ) value, wherein the drift value indicates whether drift occurred in the subgraph (paras. [0018]-[0028], [0053], [0060]-[0072]” are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers human mind and mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15. Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B. Step 2B: The above claims comprise the following additional elements: In Claim 1: apparatus (preamble); one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer readable media; In Claim 8: a computer (preamble); one or more processors; In Claim 15: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing programming for execution by one or more processors (preamble); one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable media. The additional elements such as the apparatus, computer, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, a non-transitory computer-readable medium in claims 1, 8, and 15 are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the metal processes addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to calculate a drift value (D) using the D sg value and an Incident likelihood (I L ) value . This is just a processor running algorithm related to mental processes and mathematical calculations. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15. Therefore, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible. Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards metal processes and/or mathematical calculations steps. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claims 1, 8, and 15. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-8, 12-15, and 19- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Mandle et al. (US 2021/0203560 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Mandle”) in view of Dutta et al. (US 2008/0159316 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dutta”) . Regarding claim 1, Mandle teaches an apparatus, comprising: one or more processors ( para. [0005]: one or more processors ); and one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions ( para. [0005]; para. [0040]: a computer storage medium can be, or be included in, a computer-readable storage device, a computer-readable storage substrate, a random or serial access memory array or device, or a combination of one or more of them ) which, when executed by the one or more processors ( para. [0005]: one or more processors ), cause the one or more processors ( para. [0005]: one or more processors ) to: discover, by a drift detection device executing on the one or more processors, nodes topology ( para. [0026]: the solver module 325 can be configured to generate a subgraph based on the input graph constructed by the topology; para. [0026]: the solver module 325 may be unable to determine a subgraph representing a network that is capable of satisfying all of the provisioned network flows . For example, one or more of the airborne network nodes in the network 307 may drift too far from the other network nodes to be able to form a link ); generate a plurality of subgraphs using the nodes topology ( para. [0033]: the solver module can generate a plurality of subgraphs using different solving techniques ), wherein each of the plurality of subgraphs comprises a portion of a plurality of nodes of the nodes ( para. [0033]: the solver module can generate a plurality of subgraphs using different solving techniques. After a plurality of subgraphs have been generated, the solver module can compare the predicted network performance metrics for each subgraph to the weights associated with each performance metric, and can select the subgraph corresponding to the topology that most closely achieves the weighted performance metrics ); select a subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs ( para. [0033]: the solver module can generate a plurality of subgraphs using different solving techniques. After a plurality of subgraphs have been generated, the solver module can compare the predicted network performance metrics for each subgraph to the weights associated with each performance metric, and can select the subgraph corresponding to the topology that most closely achieves the weighted performance metrics ); calculate a Drift-subgraph (D sg ) value for the subgraph using a plurality of subgraph incident parameter values ( para. [0032]: each performance metric can be associated with a numerical weight that is proportional to the importance of that metric in the network, note that the feature of “each performance metric associated with a numerical weight” reads on Drift-subgraph (Dsg)”); and calculate a drift value (D) using the D sg value ( para. [0032]: see above ) and an Incident likelihood (I L ) value ( para. [0035]: how well it achieves certain network performance metrics ), wherein the drift value ( para. [0026]: drift ) indicates whether drift occurred in the subgraph ( para. [0034]: each subgraph can be assigned a score based on how well it achieves certain network performance metrics and on the relative weights assigned to the performance metrics ). Mandle does not specifically teach a mesh of nodes topology. However, Dutta teaches a mesh of nodes topology ( Fig. 1 and para/ [0004]: FIG. 1 illustrates a mesh network 1. For explanation purposes, each node 10 in the rural mesh network may be considered as a town or a village ). Mandle and Dutta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of the graph representing a plurality of nodes and links between the plurality of nodes in mesh network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mesh of nodes topology such as is described in Dutta into Mandle, in order to provide a method of allocating channels in a mesh network (Dutta, para. [0015]). Regarding claim 3, Mandle in view of teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Mandle does not specifically teach that the plurality of subgraph incident parameter values comprise an Incident Quantity value, an Incident Fraction Potentially Causing Drift value, a Number of Nodes Capable of Causing Drift value, a Node Fraction Capable of Causing an Incident value, and an Incident Time value. However, Dutta teaches the plurality of subgraph incident parameter values comprise an Incident Quantity value ( para. [0031]: the number of incident edge ), an Incident Fraction Potentially Causing Drift value ( Fig.3 and para. [0013]: the 2P protocol has a constraint on the fraction of time links are active in a given direction . For example, for the 2P algorithm on a bi-partite subgraph (two independent sets B1 and B2 ) and operating on a single channel, a link is always active in one direction or the other. Then the fraction of time a link is active in a given direction (from B1 to B2) must be identical for all links; para. [0037]: the links may be reassigned by using a greedy technique. There are two tunable parameters in the greedy technique, an integer q and a small positive number e, which have typical values of 5 and 0.1, respectively ), a Number of Nodes Capable of Causing Drift value ( Fig. 3 and para. [0032]: each performance metric can be associated with a numerical weight that is proportional to the importance of that metric in the network, note that the above feature of “each performance metric” read on “drift ” ). a Node Fraction Capable of Causing an Incident value ( Fig. 3 and para. [0034]: the 2P protocol has a constraint on a fraction of time links are active in a given direction… The 2P protocol requires that a fraction of time a link is active in a given direction (e.g., from B1 to B2) must be the same for all links in {B1, B2}, note that the above feature of “a fraction of time a link is active in a given direction (e.g., from B1 to B2)” reads on “a Node Fraction Capable of Causing an Incident value”), and an Incident Time value ( Fig. 3 and para. [0034]: see above ). Mandle and Dutta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of nodes in mech network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of subgraph incident parameter values such as is described in Dutta into Mandle, in order to provide a method of allocating channels in a mesh network (Dutta, para. [0015]). Regarding claim 4, Mandle teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Mandle teaches D sg value ( para. [0032]: each performance metric can be associated with a numerical weight that is proportional to the importance of that metric in the network, note that the feature of “each performance metric associated with a numerical weight” reads on Drift-subgraph (Dsg)”). Mandle does not specifically teach that an equation used to calculate the D sg value is: D sg = (Incident Quantity) x (Incident Fraction Potentially Causing Drift) x (Number of Nodes Capable of Causing Drift) x (Node Fraction Capable of Causing an Incident) x (Incident Time). However, Dutta teaches an equation used to calculate the D sg value is: D sg = (Incident Quantity) x (Incident Fraction Potentially Causing Drift) x (Number of Nodes Capable of Causing Drift) x (Node Fraction Capable of Causing an Incident) x (Incident Time) ( see Fig. 3 and paras. [0013], [0026], [0031], [0034], [0037], note that since Mandle teaches plurality of subgraph incident parameter values comprise an Incident Quantity value, an Incident Fraction Potentially Causing Drift value, a Number of Nodes Capable of Causing Drift value, a Node Fraction Capable of Causing an Incident value, and an Incident Time value (see Fig. 3 and paras. [0013], [0026], [0031], [0034]), calculating the D sg value is obvious variation of such method (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution). Mandle and Dutta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of nodes in mech network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the equation used to calculate the D sg value such as is described in Dutta into Mandle, in order to provide a method of allocating channels in a mesh network (Dutta, para. [0015]). Regarding claim 5, Mandle in view of Dutta teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Mandle teaches that D is calculated by multiplying the D sg value ( para. [0032]: each performance metric can be associated with a numerical weight that is proportional to the importance of that metric in the network, note that the feature of “each performance metric associated with a numerical weight” reads on “Drift-subgraph (Dsg)”) and the I L value ( para. [0035]: how well it achieves certain network performance metrics ). Regarding claim 6, Mandle in view of Dutta teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Mandle teaches that a positive value of D indicates that drift occurred ( para. [0032]: each performance metric can be associated with a numerical weight that is proportional to the importance of that metric in the network; para. [0034]: each subgraph can be ranked across a variety of network performance metrics based on how well its topology satisfies each metric . T he ranks can be multiplied by the relative weights assigned to their respective metrics, note that since Mandle teaches the each performance metric (see para. [0032]) and each subgraph can be ranked across a variety of network performance metrics based on how well its topology satisfies each metric (see para. [0034]), therefore, a positive value of D indicates that drift occurred would be an obvious variation of such method). Regarding claim 7, Mandle in view of Dutta teaches all the limitation of claim 6, in addition, Mandle teaches that a magnitude of the positive value of D indicates a severity of the drift ( para. [0032]: each performance metric can be associated with a numerical weight that is proportional to the importance of that metric in the network; para. [0034]: each subgraph can be ranked across a variety of network performance metrics based on how well its topology satisfies each metric . T he ranks can be multiplied by the relative weights assigned to their respective metrics, note that since Mandle teaches the each performance metric (see para. [0032]) and each subgraph can be ranked across a variety of network performance metrics based on how well its topology satisfies each metric (see para. [0034]), therefore, a magnitude of the positive value of D indicates a severity of the drift would be an obvious variation of such method). Regarding claim 8, it is a method type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 10, it is a dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above. Regarding claim 11, it is a dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above. Regarding claim 12, it is a dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above. Regarding claim 13, it is a dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 6 above. Regarding claim 14, it is a dependent on claim 13 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 7 above. Regarding claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 17, it is a dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above. Regarding claim 18, it is a dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above Regarding claim 19, it is a dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above. Regarding claim 20, it is a dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claims 6 and 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claims 6 and 7 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandle in view of Dutta and Zhou et al. (JP 2010250823 A, hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”) . Regarding claim 2, Mandle in view of Dutta teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Mandle teaches that, to generate the plurality of subgraphs ( para. [0033]: the solver module can g enerate a plurality of subgraphs using different solving techniques. After a plurality of subgraphs have been generated, the solver module can compare the predicted network performance metrics for each subgraph to the weights associated with each performance metric, and can select the subgraph corresponding to the topology that most closely achieves the weighted performance metrics ) using the mesh of nodes topology (Figs. 2A and 2B), the instructions further cause the one or more processors ( para. [0005]: one or more processors ). Mandle and Dutta does not specifically teach that selecting a non-leaf node from the nodes topology and perform a tree traversal starting at the non-leaf node and using a selected depth. However, Zhou teaches selecting a non-leaf node from the nodes topology ( page 2, lines 35-36: decision tree is defined as a rooted tree, where every non-leaf node is a decision node that performs a test on a variable, and after that test ) and perform a tree traversal starting at the non-leaf node and using a selected depth ( page 2, lines 35-36: see above; page 2, lines 42-43: Referring now to FIG. 2b, a partial binary tree structure 250 is shown. In this partial binary tree structure, the currently expanding node is stored as a full depth leaf , and the unexpanded leaf is stored as a shallow depth leaf ). Mandle and Zhou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of determining a decision tree corresponding to a decision node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-leaf node such as is described in Zhou into Mandle, in order to allow a decision tree to be defined as a rooted tree, where every non-leaf node is a decision node that performs a test on a variable, and after that test, the value of that test is used to reach the leaf node (Zhou, page 7, lines 23-24). Regarding claim 9, it is a dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above. Regarding claim 16, it is a dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mead et al. (US 8,190,416 B2) teaches a method of identifying components of a computer infrastructure, comprising building a graph-based model of at least a part of the computer infrastructure, determining the presence within the built graph of a predetermined sub-graph, and where it is so determined identifying the sub-graph within the built graph. Bary et al. (US 10,382,315 B2) teaches a method for setting up forwarding tables is described. A USAT part for a node is received. The USAT part includes glow definitions and a FGPL. Each glow describes network traffic flows and role instructions for the flows. Each FGP describes a role for the switching node; a validity rule; and relevant network topology. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm. 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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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. /SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 16 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/591,128 Page 17 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights