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 .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 12/23/2025.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 15 – 20. The objection of claims 5 and 18 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cai does not disclose the claimed limitation of receiving “structure non-tabular data” that “comprises network topology data in graph format” and converting that data into tabular data.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion because Cai discloses that the graph generator 125 generates the application topology graph data structure to indicate a link between the first application and the second application(paragraph [0103]).
Cai further discloses that the interface 300 includes graph data export 310 indicia to export data for the visual elements of the network topology diagram in different formats (see paragraph [0154]).
Applicant also argued that Cai teaches converting tabular data into a graph for visualization. The claims recite receiving network topology data in graph format and converting it into tabular data. These are opposite transformations. Cai does not cure Rothschiller’s acknowledged deficiency.
The Examiner wants to point out to the Applicant that the Examiner did not use Cai for the idea of converting tabular data into a graph. Cai was combined with Rothschiller to show that such claimed invention can be done using a wireless communication system and a graph of data that comprises network topology data.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Rothschiller applies schema-defined layout rules to flatten XML data. The schema disctates how parent-child XML element relationships are mapped to rows and columns. Rothschiller does not disclose identifying a baseline object of network topology data. Rothschiller’s schema-based approach applies predefined layout rules from an XML schema. In contrast, the claims require identifying a baseline object from network topology data and generating a row for each such baseline object. The Office Action does not identify any disclosure in either Rothschiller or Cai of identifying a baseline object of network topology data such that a row of tabular data is generated for each baseline object.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion because Rothschiller discloses that a method and system for converting a hierarchical data structure into a flat data structure based on a schema) (see paraph [0036]).
Rothschiller further discloses that logical operations performed by the XML flattening program module 36 for converting the input XML data 37 into the flat data structure 39 based on the input XML schema data 38 in the personal computer system 20 described above (see paragraph [0035]
Rothschiller further discloses that The logical operations begin at load operation 210 where the input XML data 37 containing hierarchical data is loaded into a memory such as the RAM 25 for use by an application program, such as a spreadsheet application program. The input XML data 37 may include a schema embedded in the data which defines the parent-child relationships between XML elements and attributes appearing in the data. Optionally, the input XML data 37 may include a pointer to the input XML schema data 38 which may be stored on the personal computer system 20 or on a remote computer (such as remote computer 49) accessible by the personal computer system 20 over the network interface 53. It will be appreciated that the schema in the input XML schema data 38 is "mapped" to the flat data structure 39 in the application program so that the rows and columns of the spreadsheet correspond to the defined hierarchical relationships (see paragraph [0036]).
Thus, the Examiner contends that the prior art read on the claimed invention.
It appears that applicants are interpreting the claims very narrow without considering the broad teaching of the references used in the rejection. Applicants are reminded that the examiner is entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The Applicants always have the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
In view of such, the rejections are maintained and repeated as follows:
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 7, 9 – 16, and 19 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschiller et al (US 2004/0172590; hereinafter Rothschiller) in view of CAI et al (US 2019/0347282; hereinafter CAI).
Regarding claim 1, Rothschiller discloses a method by a network function to a communication system (abstract), comprising:
receiving structured non-tabular data relating to the communication system (paragraphs [0007 - 0008], [0025]; Rothschiller discloses receiving data formatted in a hierarchical data structure), wherein the structured non-tabular data comprises data in graph format (paragraphs [0003 - 0004], [0007 – 0008]; Rothschiller discloses that one such standard format developed is Extensible Markup Language ("XML"). XML is a very hierarchical data format, which includes a multitude of data structures having parent-child relationships. In the XML data format);
converting the structured non-tabular data into tabular data (abstract; paragraphs [0007 – 0008], [0076]; Rothschiller discloses that a method and system for converting a hierarchical data structure into a flat data structure based on a schema ), wherein converting the structured non-tabular data into tabular data comprises identifying a baseline object of a graph of data (paragraph [0036]; Rothschiller discloses that a method and system for converting a hierarchical data structure into a flat data structure based on a schema) and generating a row of tabular data for each baseline object in the graph of the data (paragraphs [0041 – 0042], [0045], [0048]; Rothschiller discloses that the XML flattening program module 36 will display the attributes on the same row as its parent element in the spreadsheet. The XML flattening program module 36 will also "fill down" attributes” with other child elements defined in the schema); and
storing the tabular data in a data store for access by a consumer application in the communication system (paragraphs [0030], [0035 - 0037]; Rothschiller discloses that the logical operations begin at load operation 210 where the input XML data 37 containing hierarchical data is loaded into a memory such as the RAM 25 for use by an application program, such as a spreadsheet application program. The input XML data 37 may include a schema embedded in the data which defines the parent-child relationships between XML elements and attributes appearing in the data. Optionally, the input XML data 37 may include a pointer to the input XML schema data 38 which may be stored on the personal computer system 20 or on a remote computer (such as remote computer 49) accessible by the personal computer system 20 over the network interface 53 ).
Rothschiller discloses substantially all the limitations, except for a wireless communication system and a graph of data that comprises network topology data.
CAI, in an analogous art, discloses a method and system executed in a wireless communication system (paragraph [0074]) and a graph of data that comprises network topology data (paragraphs [0069], [0100 – 0103]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Rothschiller to show that such method and system are carried out a wireless communication system and a graph of data that comprises network topology data as evidenced by CAI for the purpose of processing infrastructure inventory data received from a plurality of infrastructure resources to extract network metadata and identify relationships or links between infrastructure components for an application.
Regarding claim 2, Rothschiller the method of Claim 1, wherein converting the structured non-tabular data into tabular data comprises converting the structured non-tabular data into flat tabular data (paragraphs [0001], [0007 – 0008], [0076]; Rothschiller discloses that a method and system for converting a hierarchical data structure into a flat data structure based on a schema).
Regarding claim 3, Rothschiller the method of Claim 1, wherein the structured non-tabular data is received in a native data format, and wherein the method further comprises parsing the structured non-tabular data in the native data format (paragraphs [0008], [0010 - 0011],[0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Rothschiller discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the structured non-tabular data comprises at least one of network topology data, historical data, streaming data, trace file data and application programming interface, API, data (abstract; paragraphs [0025], [0036]).
Regarding claim 7, Rothschiller the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
identifying parameters of the baseline objects (paragraphs [0010 - 0011], [0036]; Rothschiller discloses that a plurality of layout rules is applied to the hierarchical data based on the schema. The layout rules determine how the hierarchical data will be inserted in the resulting flat data structure);
identifying related objects associated with the baseline objects (paragraphs [0010 - 0011], [0036]; Rothschiller discloses that the layout rules may be applied by identifying properties in the schema which identify occurrence requirements for elements defined in the schema. These properties may include a specifying the order in which elements occur in the hierarchical data and the number of times each element may occur. Once the properties have been identified, the layout rules are applied to the hierarchical data based on the identified properties); and
identifying parameters of the related objects (paragraphs [0010 - 0011], [0036]; Rothschiller discloses that the layout rules may also be applied based on the type of elements defined in the schema. These element types may include attributes, ancestor elements, and sibling elements);
wherein the parameters of the baseline object and the parameters of the related objects are included as columns of the tabular data in rows associated with the baseline objects (abstract; paragraphs [0004], [0011], [0036]; Rothschiller discloses that it will be appreciated that the schema in the input XML schema data 38 is "mapped" to the flat data structure 39 in the application program so that the rows and columns of the spreadsheet correspond to the defined hierarchical relationships).
Regarding claim 9, Rothschiller and CAI disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein the network function is deployed together with the consumer application within a virtual container (CAI: paragraphs [0152] [0192 - 0193]). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Rothschiller and CAI disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein the network function is deployed as a function-as-a-service that is accessible by the consumer application (CAI: paragraphs [0070], [0124], [0140]). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Rothschiller the method of Claim 1, wherein the network function is deployed as a network edge function in the wireless communication system (CAI: [0194 – 0195], [0242]). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Rothschiller the method of Claim 11, wherein the network function is deployed in a base station of the wireless communication system (CAI: paragraphs [0070], [0074]). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Rothschiller and CAI disclose all the limitations in claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose that the structured non-tabular data comprises first structured non-tabular data and the tabular data comprises first tabular data, the method further comprising: receiving second structured non-tabular data from a third network function; converting the second structured non-tabular data into second tabular data; and storing the second tabular data in the data store as combined data with the first tabular data, except for using.
However, one skilled in the art recognizes that substituting a second structured non-tabular data from a third network function for a first one as described above in claim 1 would be an obvious variation in the claims since such adding elements do not provide any further advantages, and the invention would perform equally the same with only one element. Thus, it would have been obvious to do so for the purpose of achieving the same end results.
Claims 4 – 5 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschiller et al (US 2004/0172590; hereinafter Rothschiller) in view of CAI et al (US 2019/0347282; hereinafter CAI), and further in view of Thompson et al (US 2023/0237040; hereinafter Thompson).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Rothschiller and CAI disclose all the limitations in claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose that parsing the structured non-tabular data comprises parsing the structured non-tabular data using an extract, transform and load architecture.
Thompson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that parsing the structured non-tabular data comprises parsing the structured non-tabular data using an extract, transform and load architecture (abstract; (paragraphs [0106], [0192], [0617]; Thompson discloses that a simplified flowchart of a computer-implemented method 2600 for detecting one or more non-grid-like tables and/or one or more non-grid-like tabular data arrangements depicted in image data is shown).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Rothschiller and CAI by parsing the structured non-tabular data comprises parsing the structured non-tabular data using an extract, transform and load architecture as evidenced by Thompson for the purpose of automatically and robustly detecting, extracting, and classifying diverse types of tables/tabular data arrangements depicted within documents.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschiller et al (US 2004/0172590; hereinafter Rothschiller) in view of CAI et al (US 2019/0347282; hereinafter CAI), in view of DIRAC et al (US 2015/0379428; hereinafter DIRAC).
Regarding claim 8, Rothschiller and CAI disclose all the limitations in claim 7, but fail to specifically disclose the idea of identifying vector parameters of the baseline objects and related objects; and
expanding the vector parameters into a plurality of scalar parameters, wherein the scalar parameters are included as columns of the tabular data in rows associated with the baseline objects.
DIRAC, in an analogous art, discloses the idea of identifying vector parameters of the baseline objects and related objects (paragraphs [0250], [0267]; DIRAC discloses that For models in which the parameters are vectors of values, and the a priori value is a vector of zeros, a similar approach involving the computation of the distance of a particular vector parameter from the vector of zeros may be used); and
expanding the vector parameters into a plurality of scalar parameters, wherein the scalar parameters are included as columns of the tabular data in rows associated with the baseline objects (paragraph [0294]; DIRAC discloses that an iterative learning procedure may be used to train the model, with alternating phases of expanding the model's parameter vector (e.g., by adding parameters for more binned features as well as un-binned features as more learning iterations are completed) and contracting the parameter vector (e.g., using the pruning technique described earlier). Depending on the attributes selected for concurrent binning, and the number of concurrent binning transformations selected for the training data, parameter vector expansions 6072 may result in a rapid growth in the amount of memory needed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Rothschiller and CAI by identifying vector parameters of the baseline objects and related objects; and expanding the vector parameters into a plurality of scalar parameters, wherein the scalar parameters are included as columns of the tabular data in rows associated with the baseline objects as evidenced by DIRAC for the purpose of taking full advantage of the large amount of data potentially available to make improved business predictions and decisions.
Claims 14 – 21 incorporate substantively all the limitations in claims 1 – 13 with minor modifications in the claimed language. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 13 apply in claims 14 – 21. Therefore, claims 14 – 21 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457