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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon et al. (US 20160365750) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2008/0205262). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Fallon discloses a method comprising:
The embodiment of Fallon discloses a configurable maximum number of times to attempt reconnection (para. 86; step 1008) but fails to disclose waiting a configurable period of time between connection attempts after a failure, and a timer for attempting reconnection. However, other embodiments of Fallon discloses a configurable period of time between connection attempts (para. 85) and a timer to control an operation (para. 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have activating, by the processing system in response to the detecting, a timer of the network element, where the timer is configured to count down an amount of time that is equal in duration to a duration of the interval of time; and attempting, by the processing system in response to the timer expiring, the reconnection to the communications in the embodiment of Fallon. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, pacing communication signaling and implementing the pacing by a timer as is known in the art (Fallon, paras. 44 and 85; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Fallon fails to teach and make obvious querying, by a processing system including at least one processor, a remote device for recovery data for a network element of a communications network, where the recovery data includes at least: an interval of time to wait before attempting a reconnection to the communications network following a failure of the communications network and a maximum number of times to attempt the reconnection following the failure; receiving, by the processing system, the recovery data from the remote device; storing, by the processing system, the recovery data in a memory of the network element. However, Suzuki discloses querying a remote device for a fault configuration (figs. 12-13; para. 99; fig. 5; note: policy stored in a storage device of a network element). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have querying, by a processing system including at least one processor, a remote device for recovery data for a network element of a communications network, where the recovery data includes at least: an interval of time to wait before attempting a reconnection to the communications network following a failure of the communications network and a maximum number of times to attempt the reconnection following the failure; receiving, by the processing system, the recovery data from the remote device; storing, by the processing system, the recovery data in a memory of the network element in the invention of Fallon. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, configuring a network element by a network manager as is known in the art (Suzuki, fig. 12 and para. 99; fig. 1, item 251; para. 54; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the processing system is part of the network element (Fallon, fig. 1, item 101; fig. 9, item 905; para. 47).
Regarding claim 3, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 2, wherein the communications network comprises a communications telecommunications network (figs. 1 and 9), and the network element comprises one of:
Regarding claim 4, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 2, wherein the communications network comprises a cable television operator network (specification of the instant application, para. 29 equates various prior art telecommunication networks including cable networks as equivalent), and the network element comprises one of:
Regarding claim 7, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the recovery data further comprises data related to at least one of: alternate routing for the network element or a dependency for the network element (Fallon, item 908 and step 1010; note: routing to a second server during the failure process as a dependency; Suzuki, figs. 13 and 17; note: 1+1 protection and pre-planned restoration schemes).
Regarding claim 9, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the timer is a hardware timer that is integrated with the processing system (Fallon, paras. 44, 85 and 98-103; note: implementation of a timer through a processor, ASIC and other hardware in the broadest reasonable interpretation of a hardware timer - specification of the instant application, para. 70).
Regarding claim 10, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processing system, that the reconnection was unsuccessful; and repeating, by the processing system in response to determining that the maximum number of times to attempt the reconnection has not been reached, the activating and the attempting (Fallon, step 1008 and para. 86-87; note: reconnection attempts below the failure threshold).
Regarding claim 11, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 10, further comprising: repeating, by the processing system, the determining that the reconnection was unsuccessful and the repeating the activating and the attempting up to a number of times that is equal to the maximum number of times to attempt the reconnection (Fallon, step 1008 and para. 86-87; note: reconnection attempts greater than the failure threshold).
Regarding claim 16, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the remote device comprises an application server (Fallon, item 907; note: connection or connectivity as an application), and the application server is communicatively coupled to a database that stores the recovery data for a plurality of network elements of the communications network including the network element (Fallon, figs. 1 and 9; para. 2; note: UPSes for routers, switches and servers in a network; fig. 11 and para. 98-103; note: storage and memory for a server).
Regarding claim 19, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1. In addition, Fallon discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (fig. 11) which, when executed by a processing system including at least one processor, cause the processing system to perform (para. 98-103) operations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1. In addition, Fallon discloses a device (item 101 or 905; fig. 11) comprising: a processing system including at least one processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform (paras. 98-103) operations of claim 1.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Back et al. (US 11,623,747).
Regarding claims 5-6, Fallon in view of Suzuki fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the network element is housed in a structure whose hardening has been augmented, and the method of claim 5, wherein the hardening has been augmented using at least one of: a nanoparticle paints or a faraday fabric. However, Back discloses an EMF reducing Faraday fabric for a device (col. 6, lines 60-62; col. 9, lines 42-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the network element housed in a structure whose hardening has been augmented, wherein the hardening has been augmented using at least one of: a nanoparticle paints or a faraday fabric in the invention of Fallon in view of Suzuki. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing EMF and EMI protection for a device as is known in the art (Back, col. 6, lines 60-62 and col. 9, lines 42-52; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2016/03500148).
Regarding claim 8, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the storing the recovery data comprises invention of Fallon in view of Suzuki. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, performing an update of stored data as is known in the art (Kitagawa, para. 57; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bezbaruah et al. (US 2020/01335398).
Regarding claim 12, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: .
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wager et al. (US 2015/0009802).
Regarding claims 13-14, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches attempting to reconnect with different network elements (Fallon, figs. 9-10 and steps 1002 and 1010) but fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the interval of time to wait before attempting the connection to the communications network for the network element has a different duration than an interval of time to wait before attempting a connection to the communications network for a different network element of the communications network, and the method of claim 1, wherein the maximum number of times to attempt the reconnection for the network element has a different duration than a maximum number of times to attempt a reconnection for a different network element of the communications network. However, Wager discloses having different values of timers and counters based on network conditions (paras. 93 and 108; fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the interval of time to wait before attempting the connection to the communications network for the network element has a different duration than an interval of time to wait before attempting a connection to the communications network for a different network element of the communications network, and the maximum number of times to attempt the reconnection for the network element has a different duration than a maximum number of times to attempt a reconnection for a different network element of the communications network in the invention of Fallon in view of Suzuki. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing flexibility for parameter configurations based on network conditions as is known in the art (Wager, paras. 93 and 108; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoffer (US 2021/0209249).
Regarding claim 15, Fallon in view of Suzuki discloses an operator related to policy updating (Suzuki, para. 99) but fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the recovery data is defined by a technician. However, Hoffer discloses a personnel who set processing rules (para. 281; note: technician in its broadest reasonable interpretation is a worker related to the network - specification of the instant application, para. 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recovery data defined by a technician in the invention of Fallon in view of Suzuki. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, provide as updated operation of the network as is known in the art (Hoffer, para. 281; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0365750).
Regarding claims 17-18, Fallon in view of Suzuki teaches and makes obvious multiple instances of the application server (Fallon, items 907-908) fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 16, where the database is updated when a change is made to a topology of the communications network, and wherein multiple instances of the application server and the database are distributed throughout the communications network. However, Lee discloses recovery policy that changes with topology changes (para. 273) and a distributed network controller (figs. 1A and 2E and para. 135). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the database updated when a change is made to a topology of the communications network, and wherein multiple instances of the application server and the database are distributed throughout the communications network in the invention of Fallon in view of Suzuki. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing policy that reflects the current state of the network and having local controlling devices, respectively, as is known in the art (Lee, figs. 1A and 2E, and paras. 135 and 273; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights