DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the claims
The amendment received on 08/13/2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/13/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the Applicant’s argument is related to current rejection, Applicant’s arguments are addressed as follows:
On the page of 8, Applicant alleges that “[A]pplicant respectfully asserts that the features set forth in amended independent claim 1 represent an improvement in the technology of drift detection in the context of workload deployments on a set of computing resources. As such, Applicant respectfully asserts that the features of claim 1 integrate any alleged abstract idea therein into a practical application, thus rendering the claim to not be directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has argued that the abstract idea itself is significant. However, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Applicant has not, respectfully, demonstrated with evidence why the abstract idea itself would amount to more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements (or inventive steps) in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. Therefore, the pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, 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, and drift detection device executing on the one or more processors 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)). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Mandle (US 2021/0203560 A1), Purushothaman et al. (US 2021/0389886 A1), Hayashi (JP2009175870A), Ashizawa (WO 2023/223452 A1),). For example, Mandle, Purushothaman, Hayashi, and Ashizawa teach drift detection device executing on the one or more processors (para. [0032] of Mandle; paras. [0059] and [0072] of Purushothaman; Abstract, page 6, lines 1-15 of Hayashi; Abstract, page 3, line 32- pag4, line 32 of Ashizawa).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 08/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kotzin and Purushothaman.
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 1-20 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 comprising a plurality of nodes;
generate a plurality of subgraphs using the mesh of nodes topology, wherein:
each of the plurality of subgraphs comprises a respective portion of the plurality of nodes of the mesh of nodes, and
each respective portion of the plurality of nodes includes nodes that are not present in any other respective portion of the plurality of nodes;
select a subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs;
calculate a Drift-subgraph (Dsg) value for the subgraph using a plurality of subgraph incident parameter values; and
calculate a drift value (D) using the Dsg value and an Incident likelihood (IL) value, wherein:
the drift value indicates whether drift occurred in the subgraph,
the drift is a shift in a resource usage pattern of a workload executing on the respective portion of the plurality of nodes represented by the subgraph, and
calculation of the drift value allows for identification of one or more incidents causing the drift.
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 “select a subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs (para. [0017] of instant application)” is mental process. The limitation of “select a subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs” corresponds to “judgment” in mental processes. The limitation of “generate a plurality of subgraphs using the mesh of nodes topology, wherein: each of the plurality of subgraphs comprises a respective portion of the plurality of nodes of the mesh of nodes (para. [0014], [0042]-[0046], [0050] of instant application), and each respective portion of the plurality of nodes includes nodes that are not present in any other respective portion of the plurality of nodes (paras. [0036]-[0037], [0039]-[0042] of instant application),” “calculate a Drift-subgraph (Dsg) value for the subgraph using a plurality of subgraph incident parameter values (paras. [0018], [0021], [0045] of instant application),” and “calculate a drift value (D) using the Dsg value and an Incident likelihood (IL) value, wherein the drift value indicates whether drift occurred in the subgraph (paras. [0018]-[0028], [0053], [0060]-[0072] of instant application), the drift is a shift in a resource usage pattern of a workload executing on the respective portion of the plurality of nodes represented by the subgraph, and calculation of the drift value allows for identification of one or more incidents causing the drift (paras.[0053]-[0072] of instant application)” 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; discover, by a drift detection device executing on the one or more processors, a mesh of nodes topology comprising a plurality of nodes;
In Claim 8: a computer (preamble); one or more processors; discover, by a drift detection device executing on the one or more processors, a mesh of nodes topology comprising a plurality of nodes;
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; discover, by a drift detection device executing on the one or more processors, a mesh of nodes topology comprising a plurality of nodes.
Further, 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, and drift detection device executing on the one or more processors 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)). Further, the additional element of “discover, by a drift detection device executing on the one or more processors, a mesh of nodes topology comprising a plurality of nodes (see para. [0049] of instant application)” is insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Mandle (US 2021/0203560 A1), Purushothaman et al. (US 2021/0389886 A1), Hayashi (JP2009175870A), Ashizawa (WO 2023/223452 A1),). For example, Mandle, and Purushothaman , Hayashi, and Ashizawa, teach drift detection device executing on the one or more processors (para. [0032] of Mandle; paras. [0059] and [0072] of Purushothaman; Abstract, page 6, lines 1-15 of Hayashi; Abstract, page 3, line 32- pag4, line 32 of Ashizawa).
Claim 1 does not present specific structure/features of a tangible or physical structure to calculate a drift value (D) using the Dsg value and an Incident likelihood (IL) value. Therefore, the claims have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematic or mental processes without reciting specific and tangible featrue(s)/element(s), which may be interpreted to be an practical application, to thererby improve a function of performance. 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
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandle et al. (US 2021/0203560 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Mandle”) in view of Kotzin et al. (US 2007/0147252 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kotzin”) and Purushothaman et al. (US 2021/0389886 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Purushothaman”).
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, a mesh of nodes topology (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of nodes (Fig. 2 and 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 (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 (Dsg) 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 Dsg value (para. [0032]: see above) and an Incident likelihood (IL) 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),
the drift is a shift represented by the subgraph (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 assigned a score based on how well it achieves certain network performance metrics and on the relative weights assigned to the performance metrics; para. [0035]: how well it achieves certain network performance metrics).
Mandle does not specifically teach a respective portion of the plurality of nodes, and each respective portion of the plurality of nodes includes nodes that are not present in any other respective portion of the plurality of nodes.
However, Kotzin teaches that a respective portion of the plurality of nodes, and each respective portion of the plurality of nodes includes nodes that are not present in any other respective portion of the plurality of node (Fig. 4 and paras. [0025]-[0027]: communication portions; para. [0028]: communication portion table).
Mandle and Kotzin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of nodes of 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 respective portion of the plurality of nodes such as is described in Kotzin into Mandle, in order to allow the traffic loading reduction method to be used more generally in any application where it is desirable to reduce data congestion (Kotzin, para. [0010]).
Mandle and Kotzin do not specifically teach that the drift is a shift in a resource usage pattern of a workload, and calculation of the drift value allows for identification of one or more incidents causing the drift.
However, Purushothaman teaches that the drift is a shift in a resource usage pattern of a workload (para. [0059]: a change in a storage resource demand (e.g., a change in an input/output workload, note that the above feature of “a change in an input/output workload” reads on “drift”), and
calculation of the drift value allows for identification of one or more incidents causing the drift (para. [0059]: see above; para. [0074]: the system is further configured to identify a point of failure in the data structure for the new workload request based on the analyzed resource consumption and simulated model of the data structure, note that the above feature of “a change in an input/output workload” in para. [0059 and “identify a point of failure based on the analyzed resource consumption and simulated model of the data structure” in para. [0074] reads on “calculation of the drift value allows for identification of one or more incidents causing the drift”).
Mandle and Purushothaman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a change in an input/output workload of 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 change in an input/output workload such as is described in Purushothaman into Mandle, in order to simulate and assess an impact caused by a change in a resource demand (e.g., a change in an input/output workload) and/or a change in a utilized storage technology (Purushothaman,para. [0027]) and determine a new workload request associated with a data structure (e.g., a layered data stack) and analyze resource usage patterns of the layers such as a rate of resource consumption and a volume of required resource for each layer (Purushothaman, para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Mandle in view of Kotzin and Purushothaman teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Mandle teaches that D is calculated by multiplying the Dsg 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 IL value (para. [0035]: how well it achieves certain network performance metrics).
Regarding claim 6, Mandle in view of Kotzin and Purushothaman 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. The 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 Kotzin and Purushothaman 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. The 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 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 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.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandle in view of Kotzin, Purushothaman, and Dutta et al. (US 2008/0159316 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dutta”).
Regarding claim 3, Mandle in view of Kotzin and Purushothaman teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Mandle and Purushothaman do not specifically teach that the plurality of subgraph incident parameter values compris 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 in view of Kotzin, Purushothaman, and Dutta teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Mandle teaches Dsg 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, Kotzin, and Purushothaman do not specifically teach that an equation used to calculate the Dsg value is: Dsg = (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 Dsg value is: Dsg = (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 Dsg 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 Dsg 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 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 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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandle in view of Kotzin, Purushothaman, and Zhou et al. (JP 2010250823 A, hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 2, Mandle in view of Kotzin and Purushothaman teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Mandle teaches that, to generate 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 ) 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, Kotzin, and Purushothaman 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 dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitation as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitation as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nadger et al. (US 2021/0026724 A1) teaches that some embodiments of the invention provide methods for performing root cause analysis for non-deterministic anomalies in a datacenter. For instance, the method of some embodiments identifies a root cause for degradation in performance of one or more components in a network of the datacenter. This method collects and generates resource consumption data regarding resources consumed by a set of components in this network.
Margalit et al. (WO 2017079108 A1) teaches that processing alerts indicative of conditions of nodes of a computing infrastructure are described. A node hierarchy comprising nodes associated with a service model is generated, wherein relationships between the nodes are based on impact rules. Alerts related to the node hierarchy are identified, wherein the alerts are indicative of impairments affecting at least a portion of the node hierarchy.
Calmon et al. (US 2023/0004854 A1) teaches that techniques described herein relate to a method for updating ML models based on drift detection. The method may include training a ML model; storing the trained ML model associated with a confidence threshold and a fresh indication; receiving a drift signal from an edge node; making a determination, that drift is detected for the ML model; updating the trained ML model in the shared communication layer to be associated with a drifted indication.
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 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 572-270-5628. 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
.
Prosecution Insights