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 action is responsive to application filed June 25, 2024.
This application is a Continuation of: application 17900061 (now Patent 12052136).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 6/25/24 are acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-20 of US Patent 12052136 in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774);
Claims 1-20 of US Patent 11463307 in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774);
Claims 1-20 of US Patent 10958517 in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain overlapping and equivalent limitations which are obvious variations of each. All claim sets are drawn to conflict free change deployment.
For I: as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 12052136 in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774):
As a representative example, the device claim 1 of the instant application is taught by the device claim 1 of Patent `136 which teaches the device receiving a first group of requests to schedule network changes for network functions in a network; determining a number of the requests is above a threshold resulting in satisfying the threshold; and based on the threshold, determining a schedule for the network changes that avoids conflicts.
Patent `136 fails to explicitly teach each request of the first group of requests including a start date of a network change, an end date of the network change, an estimated time for network change execution, and a policy for conflict avoidance. However, Wilkes teaches scheduling network configuration tasks and discloses requesting a task schedule based on start and end time and priority for avoiding conflicts (see Wilkes, at least Abstract & column 9 lines 20-60). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Patent `136 based on the teachings of Wilkes for the purpose of managing how a network is updated, repaired or changed so that the changes avert negative impacts and conflicts in the network.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of Patent `136, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
For II: as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 11463307 in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774):
As a representative example, the device claim 1 of the instant application is taught by the device claim 1 of Patent `307 which teaches the device receiving a first group of requests to schedule network changes for network functions in a network; determining a number of the requests is above a threshold resulting in satisfying the threshold; and based on the threshold, determining a schedule for the network changes that avoids conflicts.
Patent `307 fails to explicitly teach each request of the first group of requests including a start date of a network change, an end date of the network change, an estimated time for network change execution, and a policy for conflict avoidance. However, Wilkes teaches scheduling network configuration tasks and discloses requesting a task schedule based on start and end time and priority for avoiding conflicts (see Wilkes, at least Abstract & column 9 lines 20-60). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Patent `307 based on the teachings of Wilkes for the purpose of managing how a network is updated, repaired or changed so that the changes avert negative impacts and conflicts in the network.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of Patent `307, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
For III: as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 10958517 in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774):
As a representative example, the device claim 1 of the instant application is taught by the system claim 1 of Patent `517 which teaches the system obtaining/receiving a first group of requests to schedule network changes for network functions in a network; determining a number of the requests is above a threshold resulting in satisfying the threshold; and based on the threshold, determining a schedule for the network changes that avoids conflicts.
Patent `517 fails to explicitly teach each request of the first group of requests including a start date of a network change, an end date of the network change, an estimated time for network change execution, and a policy for conflict avoidance. However, Wilkes teaches scheduling network configuration tasks and discloses requesting a task schedule based on start and end time and priority for avoiding conflicts (see Wilkes, at least Abstract & column 9 lines 20-60). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Patent `517 based on the teachings of Wilkes for the purpose of managing how a network is updated, repaired or changed so that the changes avert negative impacts and conflicts in the network.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of Patent `517, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
Without a terminal disclaimer, the patented claims will preclude issuance of the instant generic application.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of an “abstract idea”, as outlined in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
According to Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the instant claims recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04 The claimed invention in general (with Claim 1 as a representative example) is deemed abstract because it relates to generating a schedule (see the instant specification: at least Abstract, Background and Summary). Claim 1, as the representative example, comprises functional limitations which are deemed to be abstract because they do not go beyond a broad type of data collection and data analysis, where:
The first functional limitation recites “receiving a first group of requests to schedule first network changes…”. At its face-value and based on broadest reasonable interpretation according to the specification, this is mere data collection in the form of collecting requests that contain information in order to create a schedule. This is also deemed to be data analysis because a schedule is to be created based on the request information. These are mental processes, since a person such as a manager or administrator can perform these data collecting and analysis functions in their mind using their own abilities of observation, evaluation and judgement. Accordingly the limitation is abstract since it encompasses a mental process;
The second functional limitation is “determining a number of the first group of requests…”. This is a basic type of data observation or computation. In this case, “determining” may be practically performed in the human mind by simply observing and counting data elements. The limitation is abstract since it encompasses a mental process;
The final functional limitation is “… generating a schedule…”. As mentioned above, this is a type of data analysis since a schedule can be created in a person’s mind and based on information in their mind. The person can use their judgement to create a schedule they think is best and that avoids conflicts. They can also decide to show the schedule they created by writing it down on paper or via any other visual manner. This type of generating a schedule is abstract since it encompasses a mental process, and also organizing human activity.
It has been shown that the claim recites an abstract idea which is a judicial exception. According to Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application that would make it patent eligible. The recitation of additional claim elements such as “processing system”, “memory” and “operations”, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These elements are ancillary and inconsequential to a practical application. “Official Notice” is taken that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere generic components that apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05 (a) through (h).
Finally, according to Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, where the claims are taken as a whole, the additional elements are seen as extra-solution activity that do not add an inventive concept to the claims, and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Essentially, the claim limitations are neither a technical improvement of a computer or network itself, nor are they a transformative technological process of a computer, network, or other element, and are thus seen to fall within the “Mental Process” and/or “Organizing Human Activity” categories of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 10,18 are slight variations of claim 1 and thus rejected based upon the same rationale given above for claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected based upon the same rationale given for the base claims which they depend from. Furthermore, the dependent claims fail to include additional elements that would be deemed sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3,7-12,14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al (US Publication 20090222540) in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774).
In reference to claim 1, Mishra a device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, (see ¶s 12-13,62-64) the operations comprising:
receiving a first group of requests to schedule first network changes for first network functions in a network; (see ¶ 21 lines 3-6 & ¶ 24 lines 1-15 & ¶ 25, where Mishra teaches receiving a plurality of change requests which include different change specifications)
determining a number of the first group of requests is above a threshold resulting in satisfying the threshold; (see ¶ 26 lines 1-6, where Mishra teaches determining that a condition/threshold is met, which is determining that a predetermined number of change requests has been received and which satisfy the condition) and
based on satisfying the threshold, generating a schedule for the first network changes, wherein the schedule avoids a conflict between a first network change included in the first network changes and a second network change included in the first network changes. (see ¶ 21 lines 9-14 & ¶ 22 lines 1-5 & ¶ 26 lines 4-9, where Mishra teaches based on the determining, generating network configuration schedule from the requests, which schedules network changes while reducing disruptions and impacts on the network)
Mishra fails to explicitly teach each request of the first group of requests including a start date of a network change, an end date of the network change, an estimated time for network change execution, and a policy for conflict avoidance. However, Wilkes teaches scheduling network configuration tasks and discloses requesting a task schedule based on start and end time and priority for avoiding conflicts (see Wilkes, at least Abstract & column 9 lines 20-60). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Wilkes for the purpose of managing how a network is updated, repaired or changed so that the changes avert negative impacts and conflicts in the network.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Wilkes, see at least column 3 lines 40-67 and column 9 lines 35-65, which teaches scheduling policies for avoiding disruptions including preferred times for maintenance, vertical scheduling, and resource capacity. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Wilkes in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Mishra, see at least ¶s 26,32,125,131,136,183, which teaches the change requests based on times, bandwidth capacity, and number of network devices. Furthermore, Wilkes teaches the changes based on idle network resources (see Wilkes, at least column 9 lines 41-61). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Wilkes in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Mishra, see at least ¶s 13,14,67, which teaches both software and hardware embodiments.
In reference to claim 8, Wilkes teaches subsequent to creating the schedule, rescheduling based on conflict errors, resulting in another schedule (see Wilkes, at least column 8 line 60 – column 9 line 10 and column 9 line 50 – column 10 line 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Wilkes in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 9, Wilkes teaches subsequent to creating the schedule, rescheduling based on idle resources, resulting in another schedule (see Wilkes, at least column 8 line 60 – column 9 line 10 and column 9 line 40 – column 10 line 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Wilkes in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 15, this is taught by Mishra, see at least ¶s 52,178, which teaches virtual and physical network functions.
In reference to claim 17, this is taught by Mishra, see at least ¶s 11,254, which teaches cellular networks.
Claims 10-12,14,16 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-3,7-9 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 4-6,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al (US Publication 20090222540) in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774) in further view of Beckett et al (US Patent 7385938).
In reference to claim 4, Mishra fails to explicitly teach wherein the operations comprise determining a first number of conflicts based on the first network changes, wherein the generating of the schedule for the first network changes comprises generating the schedule for the first network changes in response to determining that the first number of conflicts being less than a first conflict threshold. However, Beckett teaches managing and adjusting network configuration change schedule, and discloses managing the configuration schedule when conflicts are less than a first threshold (see Beckett, at least Abstract & column 9 line 60 – column 10 line 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Beckett for the purpose of managing a configuration schedule for network devices in a manner that coordinates the changes with minimum failures and errors.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Beckett, at least column 10 lines 15-33 & 51-64, which teaches managing configuration schedule when conflicts exceed a threshold and the schedule is based on threshold times. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Beckett in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 4.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Beckett, at least column 10 lines 15-33 & 51-64, which teaches managing configuration schedule where a fist time period is greater than a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Beckett in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 4.
Claim 13 is a slight variation of the rejected claims 4-6 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al (US Publication 20090222540) in view of Wilkes et al (US Patent 9229774) in view of Yamamoto (US Publication 20130060360).
In reference to claim 18, Mishra in view of Wilkes teaches claim 1 as shown above. Mishra further teaches transmitting the schedule to a network device (see Mishra, at least ¶ 140 lines 3-9, where Mishra teaches passing change instructions to a database). Mishra fails to explicitly teach transmitting the schedule to a network device. However, Yamamoto teaches managing network devices and transmitting a schedule to a network device for management services (see Yamamoto, at least Abstract & ¶s 30,42). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Yamamoto for the purpose of sending a generated schedule to a network device that will implement necessary network management and changes.
In reference to claim 19, Wilkes teaches rescheduling based on multiple criteria and priorities (see Wilkes, at least column 8 line 60 – column 9 line 10 and column 9 line 40 – column 10 line 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mishra based on the teachings of Wilkes in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 20, this is taught by Mishra, see at least ¶s 12-16, which teaches multiple network services and layers.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
December 16, 2025