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
This final action is in response to application filed on 09/02/2025. In this amendment, claims 1-2, 4-5, 8 and 15-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Section 101 Rejections
a. Claims 1-7 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards a software per se.
Rejections are withdrawn in view of amended claims.
b. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Rejections are maintained because the new limitations generate data that identifies an order in which the detected network event and one or more additional detected network events occurred, wherein the one or more additional detected network events are selected for inclusion based on being within a window of time that includes the detected network event, and wherein the order is determined based at least in part on a relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities are mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, select/ choose/ pick additional events that correspond to a window of time that includes the detected network event and human also can generate/ create data that identifies an order of events based on the relationship between events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. The claim also recites additional element at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to and receive data corresponding to a detected network event. The processor and the memory storing instructions are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and receiving step is mere obtaining data. Also, the additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Section 102 and 103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues in substance that:
a. In Muntes, whether an event falls inside or outside a time window merely affects the probability assigned to a correlation; it does not determine whether the event is included in the set of events analyzed. In contrast, claim 1 expressly requires selecting additional detected events for inclusion based on being within a time window that includes the detected event. Muntes does not disclose or suggest this selection criterion (from remarks pg. 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “the one or more additional detected network events are selected for inclusion based on being within a window of time that includes the detected network event”. Muntes teaches these limitations. For instance, figure 6 and paragraph 80 of Muntes indicate that the correlator performs checking whether another anomalous event (corresponding to additional detected events) occurred within a time window which the selected anomalous event (corresponding to detected events) occurred (block 608). In case, the correlator determines another anomalous event did not occur within a time window, the correlator will select the next anomalous event (NO for block 608). In case, the correlator determines the another anomalous event did occur within a time window, the correlator will perform additional screening for selecting for inclusion of nodes and edges graph (YES for block 608,609-614). Those citations indicate that the correlator only selects additional detected events (corresponding to additional detected events) that occur within the same time window of detected events for additional screening for selecting for inclusion of nodes and edges graph (selected for inclusion based on being within a window of time that includes the detected network event). Therefore, Muntes teaches the limitation above.
b. Muntes nowhere discloses generating data that identifies an order of occurrence of events (from remarks pg. 9).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “generate data that identifies an order in which the detected network event and one or more additional detected network events occurred”. Muntes reference teaches this limitation. For instance, Muntes shows generating nodes, edges as result of correlation between the anomalous events and the directionality of the edge indicates the order of the network events e.g., a failure in the component X 101 occurred first and then causes the failures in the component Y 102 and the component Z 103 (Muntes fig. 6 at 614, para. [28, 72, 81]).
c. Feinstein presents event records in "a particular ordering ... to enrich the presentation" (Feinstein, para. [0062]). This ordering is cosmetic and for display purposes only. Feinstein does not disclose or suggest selecting events for inclusion based on a time window or generating an ordered sequence based on relationships to network entities. Thus, Feinstein does not remedy Muntes' deficiencies (from remarks pg. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is unavailing because the Examiner does not rely on Feinstein for selecting events for inclusion based on a time window or generating an ordered sequence based on relationships to network entities, but instead relies on Muntes.
d. Banerjee builds Bayesian networks and computes "posterior probabilities of possible causes" (Banerjee, para. [0043]). This is a probabilistic causation analysis, not a deterministic temporal ordering of events. Banerjee does not disclose time-window based selection of events or entity-based ordering as required by claim 1. Banerjee therefore does not cure the missing limitations in Muntes (from remarks pg. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is unavailing because the Examiner does not rely on Banerjee for time-window based selection of events or entity-based ordering, but instead relies on Muntes.
e. Wilkinson discloses representing monitoring data as vectors and using them for "integrity scoring" (Wilkinson, para. [0051]). Wilkinson is directed to performance scoring, not to event ordering or fault correlation. It does not disclose selecting events within a temporal window or generating ordered event data based on entity relationships. Accordingly, Wilkinson cannot supply the missing claim elements absent from Muntes (from remarks pg. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is unavailing because the Examiner does not rely on Wilkinson for selecting events within a temporal window or generating ordered event data based on entity relationships, but instead relies on Muntes.
e. Feinstein presents event records and discusses formatting and ordering for display (See, e.g., para. [0062]). However, this ordering is purely for presentation enrichment, such as "color coding" and "a particular ordering of the event records." Feinstein does not disclose allowing a user to provide input to modify the underlying event relationships that determine order (from remarks pg. 12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “modify the data that identifies the order, responsive to receiving, from a user device, an input indicating at least one modification to the relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities”. The Examiner would like to clarify that Feinstein (US 9,049,105) teaches these limitations recited in the claim. For instance, Feinstein teaches according to user’s manual direction applied to rule, event sequences can be change for example, some certain events can be split from event sequences and related to different network incident event sequences (Feinstein col. 16 lines 61-67, col. 19 lines 6-8, col. 2 lines 15-16). Therefore, Feinstein teaches modifying the data that identifies the order, responsive to receiving, from a user device, an input indicating at least one modification to the relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities. The combination of Muntes-Feinstein offers the advantage of providing ability for user to adjust or correct relationship between events.
f. Wilkinson's vector analysis is directed to scoring integrity, not to identifying related network events or establishing event relationships. Neither Muntes nor Wilkinson teaches or suggests representing network events themselves as vectors, and comparing those vectors to identify related network events (from remark pg. 12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “generate a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and compare each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events” and Wilkinson teaches these limitations. For instance, Wilkinson teaches receiving a first set of vectors and a second set of vectors wherein each vector representing a network event generated by a system (corresponding to representing network events as vectors) (Wilkinson fig. 4 and para. [57]). And after that, the system performs matching/ comparing in order to identify matching vectors among the first and second set that represent corresponding or matching network events (Wilkinson fig. 4 and para. [58]). Therefore, Wilkinson teaches generating a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and comparing each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events. The combination of Muntes-Wilkinson it offers the advantage of identifying correlation among network events.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-20 are objected to because of the following:
Claim 16-20, status of these claim should be Currently Amended;
Element “data analyzer” is removed in independent claim 15 but still recited in dependent claims 16-17 and 19-20.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites a system comprising: generate data that identifies an order in which the detected network event and one or more additional detected network events occurred, wherein the one or more additional detected network events are selected for inclusion based on being within a window of time that includes the detected network event, and wherein the order is determined based at least in part on a relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities. These are abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, select/ choose/ pick additional events that correspond to a window of time that includes the detected network event and human also can generate/ create data that identifies an order of events based on the relationship between events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional element at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to and receive data corresponding to a detected network event. The processor and the memory storing instructions are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and receiving step is mere obtaining data. Therefore, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, the 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor and the memory storing instructions are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and receiving data corresponding to a detected network event is mere obtaining data; therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites further configured to generate, based at least in part on the generated data, a data structure that represents the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events. This is an abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, generate/ draw a data structure that represents the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional element that encodes relationships among the events identified by the system. This element mere provides explanation regarding the data structure, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element mere provides explanation regarding the data structure, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites configured to modify the data that identifies the order, responsive to receiving, from a user device, an input indicating at least one modification to the relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities. These elements clarify an abstract idea above, thus, are part of recitation of the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 also includes limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as discussed above.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites the system is configured to store the generated data in association with the detected network event in a data structure to facilitate automated root cause analysis. These elements clarify an abstract idea above, thus, are part of recitation of the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 also includes limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as discussed above.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites generate data that identifies an order in which the one or more network events occurred, based at least in part on a relationship between each of the one or more network events to network entities. This is an abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, can generate/ create data that identifies an order of events based on the relationship between events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional element obtain, from a user device, a given user configuration that defines custom event parameters including a time window or network entity scope for one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events. The element is no more than obtaining information. Therefore, the element is insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites obtain, from a user device, a given user configuration that defines custom event parameters including a time window or network entity scope for one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events. The element is no more than obtaining information. Therefore, the element is insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites generate a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and compare each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events. These are abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, generate/draw a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and compare each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites wherein the window of time is selected based at least in part on one or more attributes corresponding to the detected network event, the one or more attributes at least comprising a temporal proximity parameter. These elements clarify an abstract idea above, thus, are part of recitation of the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 7 also includes limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, the claim recites computer implemented method comprising: generating, by the network management system, data that identifies an order in which the detected network event and one or more additional detected network events occurred, wherein the one or more additional detected network events are selected for inclusion based on being within a window of time that includes the detected network event, and wherein the order is determined based at least in part on a relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities. These are abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, select/ choose/ pick additional events that correspond to a window of time that includes the detected network event and human also can generate/ create data that identifies an order of events based on the relationship between events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional element receiving data corresponding to a detected network event. The receiving step is mere obtaining data, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, receiving data corresponding to a detected network event is mere obtaining data; thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites further comprising generating, by the network management system, based at least in part on the generated data, a network event graph defining a one-to-one relationship between the detected network event and at least one additional detected network event from the one or more additional detected network events. This is an abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, generate/ draw a network event graph based at least in part on the generated data, a network event graph defining a one-to-one relationship between the detected network event and at least one additional detected network event from the one or more additional detected network events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 8, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites comprising modifying, by the network management system, the data that identifies the order, responsive to receiving, from a user device, an input indicating at least one modification to the relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities. These elements clarify an abstract idea above and are part of recitation of the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 10 also includes limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as discussed above.
Claim 11 depends on claim 8, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites one of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events is indicative of at least one network error corresponding to a computing network. These elements clarify an abstract idea above, thus, are part of recitation of the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11 also includes limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as discussed above.
Claim 12 depends on claim 8, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites generating, by the network management system, data that identifies an order in which the one or more network events occurred, based at least in part on a relationship between each of the one or more network events to network entities. This is an abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, can generate/ create data that identifies an order of events based on the relationship between events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional element obtaining, by the network management system from a user device, a given user configuration representative of one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events. The element is no more than obtaining information. Therefore, the element is insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites obtaining, from a user device, a given user configuration representative of one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events. The element is no more than obtaining information. Therefore, the element is insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 depends on claim 8, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites generating, by the network management system, a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and comparing, by the network management system, each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events. These are abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, generate/draw a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and compare each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 depends on claim 8, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites wherein the window of time is selected based at least in part on one or more attributes corresponding to the detected network event, the one or more attributes at least comprising a temporal proximity parameter. These elements clarify an abstract idea above, thus, are part of recitation of the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 14 also includes limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as discussed above.
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites generate data that identifies an order in which the detected network event and one or more additional detected network events occurred, based at least in part on a relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, identify/ find/ check/ determine additional events that correspond to a window of time that includes the detected network event and human also can generate/ create data that identifies an order of events based on the relationship between events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional elements a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a network management system and receive data corresponding to a detected network event. The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions and one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; receiving step is mere obtaining data, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, the 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions and one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; receiving step is mere obtaining data, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites wherein the system is further configured to generate, based at least in part on the generated data, a network event graph defining a one-to-one relationship between the detected network event and at least one additional detected network event from the one or more additional detected network events. This is an abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, generate/ draw a network event graph based at least in part on the generated data, a network event graph defining a one-to-one relationship between the detected network event and at least one additional detected network event from the one or more additional detected network events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional element wherein the data analyzer is further configured to is no more than software component, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, wherein the data analyzer is further configured to are mere software component, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 depends on claim 15, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites wherein modify the data that identifies the order, responsive to receiving, from a user device, an input indicating at least one modification to the relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities. These elements clarify an abstract idea above, thus, are part of recitation of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional element wherein the data analyzer is further configured to is no more than software component, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, wherein the data analyzer is further configured to is mere software component, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 depends on claim 15, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites wherein one of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events is indicative of at least one network error corresponding to a computing network. These elements clarify an abstract idea above, thus, are part of recitation of the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 also includes limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as discussed above.
Claim 19 depends on claim 15, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites generating data that identifies an order in which the one or more network events occurred, based at least in part on a relationship between each of the one or more network events to network entities. This is an abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, can generate/ create data that identifies an order of events based on the relationship between events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional elements wherein the data analyzer is configured to: obtain, from a user device, a given user configuration representative of one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events. These elements are no more than software component and obtaining information. Thus, these elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites wherein the data analyzer is configured to obtain, from a user device, a given user configuration representative of one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events. These elements are no more than software component and obtaining information. Therefore, these elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 depends on claim 15, thus is having the same issue as shown above. Further, the claim also recites wherein the system is configured to: generate a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and compare each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events. These are abstract idea including mental processes. For instance, a human can, in the human mind or on paper, generate/draw a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and compare each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events. Therefore, these are abstract idea including mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites additional element wherein the data analyzer is further configured to is no more than software component, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, wherein the data analyzer is further configured to is mere software component, thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muntes-Mulero et al. (US 2017/0279660, Pub. Date: Sep. 28, 2017, hereinafter “Muntes”).
As per claim 1, Muntes discloses a system (Muntes fig.1 and para. [0019], FIG. 1 depicts an example system for generating and augmenting a context graph) configured to comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Muntes fig. 7 and para. [0098], The computer system includes a processor unit 701 (possibly including multiple processors, multiple cores, multiple nodes, and/or implementing multi-threading, etc.). The computer system includes memory 707):
receive data corresponding to a detected network event (Muntes para. [0047], The generator may retrieve the event log by querying an event database; Muntes fig. 6 and para. [0079], The correlator begins operations for each anomalous event identified in the event log (606). The anomalous event for which the correlator is currently performing operations is hereinafter referred to as the "selected anomalous event."; Muntes para. [0078], An anomalous event is an event that indicates a network occurrence or condition that deviates from a normal or expected value or outcome); and
generate data (Muntes fig. 6, Generate Nodes And Edges Corresponding To The Components In The Anomalous Events at 614 and Muntes para. [0081], the correlator may search the anomalous events identified at process block 604 with an identifier for the component associated with the selected anomalous event ("the first component") and an identifier for the component corresponding to the other anomalous event ("the second component")) that identifies an order in which the detected network event and one or more additional detected network events occurred (Muntes para. [0072], The directionality of the edges may be based on a direction of causality between the components (i.e., an event at a first component caused an event at a second component); Muntes fig.1 and para. [0028], the directionality of the edges … may indicate component-based event dependencies such as a failure chain in which a failure in the component X 101 causes a failure in the component Y 102 and the component Z 103. [These citations show that the directionality of the edge indicates the order of the network events e.g., a failure in the component X 101 occurred first and then causes the failures in the component Y 102 and the component Z 103]), wherein the one or more additional detected network events are selected for inclusion based on being within a window of time that includes the detected network event (Muntes fig. 6, block 608 and para. [0080], The correlator determines whether another anomalous event [one or more additional detected network events] occurred within a time window or period x within which the selected anomalous event [selected event] occurred (608) … If the correlator determines that another anomalous event did not occur within a time window x, the correlator selects the next anomalous event (606)), and wherein the order is determined based at least in part on a relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities (Muntes para. [0072], The directionality of the edges may be based on a direction of causality between the components (i.e., an event at a first component caused an event at a second component; Muntes fig.1 and para. [0028], the directionality of the edges … may indicate component-based event dependencies such as a failure chain in which a failure in the component X 101 causes a failure in the component Y 102 and the component Z 103. [These citations show that the directionality of the edge indicates the order of the network events e.g., a failure in the component X 101 occurred first and then causes the failures in the component Y 102 and the component Z 103]).
As per claim 2, Muntes the system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Muntes also discloses wherein the system is further configured to generate, based at least in part on the generated data (Muntes fig. 6, Generate Nodes And Edges Corresponding To The Components In The Anomalous Events at 614), data structure (Muntes fig. 5, Augment Context Graph With The Nodes And Edges at 512; Muntes para. [0077], The operations depicted in FIG. 6 are examples of operations that may be performed at process block 506 of FIG. 5) that represents the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events, and that encodes relationships among the events identified by the system (Muntes [0031], the augmenter 112 augments the context graph 111 with additional edges or nodes to create an augmented context graph 113. The augmenter 112 adds nodes and edges that correspond to the additional component relationships indicated by the correlated events. In FIG. 1, the augmenter 112 adds an edge between the component Y 102 and the component Z 103 based on determining that an event at component Y 102 caused an event at component Z 103 at stage E).
As per claim 4, Muntes discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Muntes also discloses wherein the system is configured to store the generated data in association with the detected network event in a data structure to facilitate automated root cause analysis (Muntes fig. 6, Generate Nodes And Edges Corresponding To The Components In The Anomalous Events at 614; Muntes [0031-0032], the augmenter 112 augments the context graph 111 with additional edges or nodes to create an augmented context graph 113. The augmenter 112 adds nodes and edges that correspond to the additional component relationships indicated by the correlated events… The analyzer 114 may use the augmented context graph 113 to perform root cause analysis)
As per claim 7, Muntes discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Muntes also discloses wherein the window of time is selected based at least in part on one or more attributes corresponding to the detected network event, the one or more attributes at least comprising a temporal proximity parameter (Muntes para. [0080], The correlator determines whether another anomalous event occurred within a time window or period x within which the selected anomalous event occurred (608). The time window x is a configurable value that instructs the correlator how far back in time to search for another anomalous event … The length of the time window x may be based on a statistical determination that if two events did not occur within a certain temporal proximity then they are unlikely to be related. The time window x may be adjusted based on the results of correlation analysis).
Per claim 8, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. As such, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As per claim 9, Muntes discloses the system according to claim 8, as set forth above, Muntes also discloses further comprising generating, by the network management system, based at least in part on the generated data (Muntes fig. 6, Generate Nodes And Edges Corresponding To The Components In The Anomalous Events at 614), a network event graph (Muntes fig. 5, Augment Context Graph With The Nodes And Edges at 512; Muntes para. [0077], The operations depicted in FIG. 6 are examples of operations that may be performed at process block 506 of FIG. 5) defining a one-to-one relationship between the detected network event and at least one additional detected network event from the one or more additional detected network events (Muntes [0031], the augmenter 112 augments the context graph 111 with additional edges or nodes to create an augmented context graph 113. The augmenter 112 adds nodes and edges that correspond to the additional component relationships indicated by the correlated events. In FIG. 1, the augmenter 112 adds an edge between the component Y 102 and the component Z 103 based on determining that an event at component Y 102 caused an event at component Z 103 at stage E).
As per claim 11, Muntes discloses the system according to claim 8, as set forth above, Muntes also discloses wherein one of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events is indicative of at least one network error corresponding to a computing network (Muntes fig. 6 and para. [0080], The correlator determines whether another anomalous event occurred within a time window or period x within which the selected anomalous event occurred (608); Muntes para. [0078], An anomalous event is an event that indicates a network occurrence or condition that deviates from a normal or expected value or outcome).
Per claim 14, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. As such, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Per claims 15-16 and 18, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 8-9 and 11 respectively. As such, claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 8-9 and 11 respectively.
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 of this title, 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 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero et al. (US 2017 /0279660, Pub. Date: Sep. 28, 2017, hereinafter “Muntes”), in view of Feinstein et al. (US 9,049,105, Date of Patent: Jun. 2, 2015).
As per claim 3, Muntes discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Muntes also discloses wherein the system is configured to modify the data that identifies the order (Muntes para. [0058], existing nodes and edges may be removed from the context graph; Muntes para. [0072], The directionality of the edges may be based on a direction of causality between the components (i.e., an event at a first component caused an event at a second component), responsive to receiving, from event rule indicating at least one modification to the relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities (Muntes para. [0058], existing nodes and edges may be removed from the context graph. For example, an event rule may indicate that an edge should be removed if no event indication corresponding to the relationship indicated by the edge has been received for a period of time. Or, for example, an edge may be removed if an attribute value in an additional event indication, such as a number of invocations, falls below a relationship indication threshold).
Muntes does not explicitly disclose:
modify the data, responsive to receiving, from a user device, an input indicating at least one modification to the relationship.
Feinstein teaches:
modify the data (Feinstein col. 16 lines 61-67, new dependency information may cause certain events to be split from or extracted from event sequences because they may be more related to a different incident than determined by previous rules, in one embodiment; Feinstein col. 19 lines 6-8, the computing device may monitor event records in event sequences associated with certain incidents and/or network elements; Feinstein col. 2 lines 15-16, Such multiple event records may be stored in an event sequence associated with the incident), responsive to receiving, from a user device (Feinstein fig. 1, user device 104), an input indicating at least one modification to the relationship (Feinstein col. 16 lines 21-25, The rules may affect the storage of event records in real-time (e.g., as the event records are created and stored initially) or after event records are initially stored according to a user's manual direction to, for example, resort event records in event sequences based on new or updated rules and/or dependencies).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Muntes in view of Feinstein in order to incorporate user input to modify the relationship between each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events to network entities.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of providing ability for user to adjust or correct relationship between events.
Per claims 10 and 17, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. As such, claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero et al. (US 2017/0279660, Pub. Date: Sep. 28, 2017, hereinafter “Muntes”), Behne (US 2022/0398238, Pub. Date: Dec. 15, 2022).
As per claim 5, Muntes discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Muntes also discloses wherein the system is configured to:
obtain a configuration that defines custom event parameters including a time window (Muntes para. [0080], The correlator determines whether another anomalous event occurred within a time window or period x within which the selected anomalous event occurred (608). The time window x is a configurable value that instructs the correlator how far back in time to search for another anomalous event) or network entity scope for one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events (Muntes para. [0080], The time window x may be adjusted based on the results of correlation analysis. For example, the time window x may be shortened if the correlation analysis consistently determines no correlation or low correlation for events that occurred near the constraints of the time window x, or the time window x may be lengthened if few correlations are identified); and
generate data (Muntes fig. 6, Generate Nodes And Edges Corresponding To The Components In The Anomalous Events at 614) that identifies an order in which the one or more network events occurred, based at least in part on a relationship between each of the one or more network events to network entities (Muntes para. [0072], The directionality of the edges may be based on a direction of causality between the components (i.e., an event at a first component caused an event at a second component); Muntes fig.1 and para. [0028], the directionality of the edges … may indicate component-based event dependencies such as a failure chain in which a failure in the component X 101 causes a failure in the component Y 102 and the component Z 103. [These citations show that the directionality of the edge indicates the order of the network events e.g., a failure in the component X 101 occurred first and then causes the failures in the component Y 102 and the component Z 103]).
Muntes does not explicitly disclose:
obtain, from a user device, a given user configuration.
Behne teaches:
obtain, from a user device (Behne para. [0110], a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation, or any combination of such back-end, middleware, or front-end components), a given user configuration (Behne para. [0033], Data collector 110 is illustrated as including an interval handler 120, which is configured to enable an administrator to set and define intervals for which performance data is captured; Behne para. [0045], Thus, in the example of FIG. 1, report generator 112 includes an interval selector 128, which may be configured to initiate a group-and-filter search within a search session, including receiving a user selection of an interval, or interval multiple, of the intervals defined by interval handler 120).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Muntes in view of Behne for obtaining, from a user device, a given user configuration that defines custom event parameters including a time window or network entity scope for one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of allowing user to customize collecting data for analysis.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero et al. (US 2017/0279660, Pub. Date: Sep. 28, 2017, hereinafter “Muntes”), in view of Wilkinson (US 2013/0163438, Pub. Date: US 2013/0163438).
As per claim 6, Muntes discloses the system according to claim 1, as set forth above, Muntes does not explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to:
generate a vector representation of each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events; and
compare each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events.
Wilkinson teaches:
generate a vector representation of each of network event and one or more additional network events (Wilkinson fig. 4 and para. [0057], At block 405, monitoring system 100 may receive a first set of vectors (e.g., Aevents), each vector representing a network event generated by a telecommunications network testing system (e.g., device 105). At block 410, monitoring system 100 may receive a second set of vectors (e.g., Mevent), each vector representing a network event as observed by monitoring system 100); and
compare each vector representation with other vector representations to identify related network events (Wilkinson fig. 4 and para. [0058], At block 415, monitoring system 100 may identify corresponding or matching [comparing] vectors among the first and second set that represent corresponding or matching network events).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Muntes in view of Wilkinson in order to incorporate generating vectors representation of network events and comparing each vector representations to identify related network events.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of identifying correlation among network events.
Per claims 13 and 20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. As such, claims 13 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero et al. (US 2017/0279660, Pub. Date: Sep. 28, 2017, hereinafter “Muntes”), Banerjee et al. (US 11,561,850, Date of Patent Jan. 24, 2023).
As per claim 12, Muntes discloses the system according to claim 8, as set forth above, Muntes also discloses one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events (Muntes para. [0034], the event database 106 may be configured to push a batch of events to the event analyzer 107 and the event correlator 116 once a number of new events have been received from the network 104); and
generating, by the network management system (Muntes para. [0019], FIG. 1 depicts an example system for generating and augmenting a context graph), data (Muntes para. [0034], the event database 106 may be configured to push a batch of events to the event analyzer 107 and the event correlator 116 once a number of new events have been received from the network 104. Receiving the batch of events by the event analyzer 107 and the event correlator 116 may trigger re-analysis and updating of the context graphs 111 and 113; Muntes para. [0051], The generator generates nodes and edges indicated by the event rule(s) (310). The event rules include actions such as generating nodes and edges based on an event specified by event data within a respective indication) that identifies an order in which the one or more network events occurred, based at least in part on a relationship between each of the one or more network events to network entities (Muntes para. [0072], The directionality of the edges may be based on a direction of causality between the components (i.e., an event at a first component caused an event at a second component); Muntes para. [0028], the directionality of the edges … may indicate component-based event dependencies such as a failure chain in which a failure in the component X 101 causes a failure in the component Y 102 and the component Z 103).
Muntes does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining, by the network management system from a user device, a given user configuration representative of one or more network events.
Banerjee teaches:
obtaining, by the network management system from a user device (Banerjee fig. 1, system 100), a given user configuration representative of one or more network events (Banerjee col. 11 lines 49-54, at step 612, a new failure event is received by the CPA calculator 116 for failure analysis. The new failure event may be an actual failure event or a hypothetical failure event, which is entered into the failure analysis system 100 by an end user using an appropriate mechanism, such as a user interface).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Muntes in view of Banerjee for obtaining, by the network management system from a user device, a given user configuration representative of one or more network events different from each of the detected network event and the one or more additional detected network events.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of allowing user to enter a new event for analysis.
Per claim 19, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 12. As such, claim 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kahana et al. (US 8635498) Performance Analysis Of Applications;
Vidal et al. (US 20190340512) Analytics For An Automated Application Testing Platform;
Lvin et al. (US 20160179598) System And Method Of Visualizing Historical Event Correlations In A Data Center.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VINH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 AM - 5:30 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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/VINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453