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 Final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on 12/16/2025. Claims 1-6, and 11 are pending. Claims 1-6 and 11 are currently amended. Claims 1, 5, and 11 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the sequence “initialize, …,” “generate, …,” and “overwrite, …,” and this sequence is arbitrary and incomplete because there is no context for why this random sequence of limitations and without such context, it is not possible to decipher the scope and breadth of the claimed invention and apply appropriate prior art. Claims 5 and 11 repeat the same limitations and are analyzed similarly.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “…potentially generated…” and this limitation does not follow the sequence established in claim 1 and the term potentially is ambiguous and lacks context. Claims 3 is dependent on claim 2 limitation and is indefinite. Together claims 2 and 3 recite limitations that are devoid of context and read like some random and arbitrary process steps that may appear anywhere. Without such context, it is not possible to decipher the scope and breadth of the claimed invention and apply appropriate prior art. Claims 4 and 6 again lack the context and read like some random and arbitrary process step that may appear anywhere.
Claims in general are incomplete and recite process steps that are random, arbitrary, and devoid of context. It is not possible to decipher the scope and breadth of the claimed invention and apply appropriate prior art without such context.
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, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messinger et al. (US 6687750 B1, hereinafter Messinger) in view of Biradar (US 2022/0311691 A1, hereinafter Biradar).
Regarding claim 5, Messinger teaches maintenance apparatus comprising:
at least one second memory storing instructions; and at least one second processor configured to execute the instructions to:
extract a visualization target item from a visualization item file, the visualization target item being an item of traffic information to be visualized in a monitoring screen, the visualization item file being a file in which traffic information being used for generating the monitoring screen is described in a predetermined file format, [Figure 3 extract/select items for visualization by user from the reporting application and see associated description; Figure 2 shows files from reporting application used by the visualization application; associated description for Figure 2 describes a format for the file records such as time stamps to indicate when the record was generated]; and
notify the network apparatus, in which the traffic information is generated in response to transmission/reception of a signal, of the extracted visualization target item, [Figure 3, 320, 330, 340 shows user selection (extraction)] and cause the network apparatus wherein, in a case where the traffic information is generated for the visualization target item, the initial value associated with traffic information is overwritten with the generated traffic information in the network apparatus, [Figure 3, 340, 350];
Messinger does not explicitly teach to initialize the traffic information of the visualization target item by associating the traffic information of the visualization target item to an initial value of 0 before generating the traffic information;
Biradar teaches to initialize the traffic information of the visualization target item by associating the traffic information of the visualization target item to an initial value of 0 before generating the traffic information, [Par.[0022] describes initializing a counter to 0 and overwriting it every time a packet is received from the same flow]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation/suggestion would have been to set up an accurate and scalable flow rate measurement, [Biradar: Abstract].
Claims 1 and 11 are obvious variants of claim 5 and are rejected as above using the Messinger/Biradar combination.
Examiner’s Note: dependent claims do not make sense because they lack context and are not to be understood as allowable. Claims must recite a coherent sequence of process steps that make up the claimed invention. Reciting a random set of process steps that include initializing some random data to 0 and overwriting it with some generated data does not make an invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights