DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 08, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicant's arguments filed January 08, 2026, with regard to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) has been withdrawn.
Secondly, regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on Applicant’s amended claims (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103).
Finally, Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Similar to the previous response, Applicant’s current arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable-eligible invention without addressing the Examiner’s specific rejection. Applicant also generally raises grievances against the Supreme Court for issuing the Alice decision, and questions the rule-making authority of the Office to interpret statutes and set policies based on judicial precedent in view of the recent Henry Schein and Bostock Supreme Court cases (see pp. 15-16 of Applicant’s remarks). Following appeal, Applicant is welcome to seek judicial review (see MPEP §1216) and have their grievances heard. However, respectfully, the Examiner does not set policy for the Office and is not the audience for such arguments. Please respect the Examiner’s time and refrain from including such personal grievances or speculative policy opinions in future communications.
Whether or not Applicant agrees with the Supreme Court’s previous decisions regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, or the Office policy developed from those opinions, as it currently stands, the Alice/Mayo two-part test, modified by the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance, is the only test that is used to evaluate the eligibility of claims for patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP §2106), which the Examiner must follow. The Examiner would therefore appreciate if Applicant could stick to arguments addressing the application of the two-part framework. Specifically, as previously noted in the Response to Arguments section of the October 10, 2026 Office Action, Applicant’s remarks should address what operations, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executing by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations”), could not otherwise broadly be performed broadly in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and why (i.e., Step 2A), and/or 2) which claim elements, apart from the mental process/abstract idea itself, Applicant believes adds a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea (i.e., Step 2A, prong 2A and/or Step 2B).
Furthermore, with regard to the “Claim Amendments section” (see pp. 14), Applicant’s remarks rely on outdated guidance from 2018, and also appears to confuse 35 U.S.C. §102/§103 with 35 U.S.C. §101. In other words, regardless of whether the mental process steps are not “well understood, routine, or conventional”, in the sense of 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103, they are still mental process steps, and thus patent ineligible as being directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C §101 (see MPEP §2106.04 “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions”). Therefore, the next step of the Alice/Mayo Patent eligibility test is to find what additional elements, beyond the judicial exception, is claimed (i.e., Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B). In this case, the additional elements that are not part of the judicial exception/mental process comprise the “processing system including a processor” and “communication device”. However, even considered in combination with the mental process steps, the additional elements represent generic computing components, and simply amounts to using the words “apply [the mental process steps]” using computer(s) and therefore fails to add a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP §2106.05(f) and/or §2106.05(g)). Finally, the use of the generic computing components in performing the mental process steps (e.g., “execut[ing] instructions” and “sending the report or the message to a communication device associated with personnel of the communications network”) represents well-understood routine, and conventional activity (e.g., email/text messaging, also see MPEP 2106.05(d), with respect to “receiving or transmitting data over a network”) and therefore, even considered in combination with the mental process steps, fail to recite significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B (see MPEP §2106.05).
With respect to Applicant’s prudence arguments (see pp. 15-16), as previously addressed, the Applicant is respectfully reminded the Examiner does not set Office policy, but rather follows the guidance of the MPEP. Specifically, MPEP §2106, regarding the Alice/Mayo two-part test to evaluate the eligibility of claims, as modified by the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance. Nevertheless, Applicant’s grievances regarding judicial overreach with respect to the Alice decision, separation of powers, and the rule-making authority of the Office (e.g., as reflected in MPEP §2106), following the Henry Schein and Bostock cases, is noted.
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,143 ('143 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of the ‘143 patent, as noted in the table below, they are not patentably distinct as claims 1-20 are either anticipated, or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of claims 1-20 the ‘143 Patent.
Current Application
‘143 Patent
1. 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, the operations comprising:
obtaining first data pertaining to resources of a communications network;
obtaining second data pertaining to: mobility, power, streaming data, transport, access, administration, or any combination thereof;
obtaining third data pertaining to risk-related data, the risk-related data including: engineered risks, weather-based risks, environmental risks, weather, sporting events, concerts, political activities, key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations, power failures, and equipment failures;
processing the first data and the second data to generate a representation of at least one risk in respect of a communication service provided in the communications network;
generating a report or a message that captures the representation;
sending the report or the message to a communication device associated with personnel of the communications network; and the sending of the report or the message directing the personnel to an area or region associated with the at least one risk for rerouting first communication services from a first path to a second path to reduce the risk.
1. 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, the operations comprising:
obtaining first data pertaining to resources of a communications network;
obtaining second data …;
processing the first data and the second data to generate a representation of the at least one risk in respect of a communication service provided in the communications network;
generating a presentation that includes the representation of the at least one risk; presenting the presentation at a communication device; …
6. The device of claim 1, wherein the second data includes data pertaining to weather, concerts, political activities, alarms, tickets for outages, or any combination thereof (which anticipates or renders obvious obtaining the third data including engineered risks, weather-based risks, environmental risks, weather, sporting events, concerts, political activities, key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations, power failures, and equipment failures, as currently claimed);
…14. The device of claim 1, wherein the second data pertains to: mobility, power, Internet data, streaming data, transport, access, billing, and authentication.
As per claim 1, the ‘143 Patent claims do not teach the limitation of “the sending of the report or the message directing the personnel to an area or region associated with the at least one risk for rerouting first communication services from a first path to a second path to reduce the risk.”
Nevertheless, sending a report or message directing personnel to an area or region associated with the at least one risk was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Ballantine et al. (US 6,446,123), , see col. 4, lines 15-18, i.e., “automatically schedules network maintenance based on anticipated unacceptable network performance”, also see col. 5, lines 10-13, which makes clear the network maintenance is with respect to a particular site (i.e., “an area or region associated with the at least one risk”)).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further send a report or message directing personnel to an area or region associated with the at least one risk. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to proactively maintain the performance of the communication service.
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining a user-generated input in respect of at least one resource included in the resources; processing the user-generated input in conjunction with the first data and the second data to generate a modified representation of the at least one risk; and generating a modified report or a modified message that includes the modified representation of the at least one risk.
3 … obtaining a user-generated input in respect of at least one resource included in the resources as part of the interactive presentation;
processing the user-generated input in conjunction with the first data and the second data to generate a modified representation of the at least one risk; generating a modified presentation that includes the modified representation of the at least one risk; and presenting the modified presentation at the communication device, a third communication device, or a combination thereof.
3. The device of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: sending the modified report or the modified message to the communication device, a second communication device, or a combination thereof.
3 … presenting the modified presentation at the communication device, a third communication device, or a combination thereof.
4. The device of claim 1, wherein the report or the message includes an identification of the at least one risk originating in a first portion of the communications network, and wherein the report or the message includes a representation of an impact of the at least one risk on a second portion of the communications network.
4. The device of claim 1, wherein the presentation includes an identification of the at least one risk originating in a first portion of the communications network, and wherein the presentation includes a representation of an impact of the at least one risk on a second portion of the communications network
5. The device of claim 1, wherein the first data includes an identification of client devices that are connected to the resources.
5. The device of claim 1, wherein the first data includes an identification of client devices that are connected to the resources.
6. The device of claim 1, wherein the second data includes data pertaining to weather, concerts, political activities, alarms, tickets for outages, or any combination thereof.
6. The device of claim 1, wherein the second data includes data pertaining to weather, concerts, political activities, alarms, tickets for outages, or any combination thereof.
7. The device of claim 1, wherein the representation of the at least one risk includes a numerical score.
7. The device of claim 1, wherein the representation of the at least one risk includes a numerical score.
8. The device of claim 1, wherein the representation of the at least one risk is based on a color-coding scheme.
8. The device of claim 1, wherein the representation of the at least one risk is based on a color-coding scheme.
9. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the at least one risk exceeds a threshold; and based on the determining that the at least one risk exceeds a threshold, transmitting the report or the message to a second communication device.
9. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the at least one risk exceeds a threshold; and based on the determining that the at least one risk exceeds a threshold, transmitting a message to the communication device, a third communication device, or a combination thereof.
10. The device of claim 9, wherein the threshold is specified by a first user of the communication device or a second user of the second communication device.
10. The device of claim 9, wherein the threshold is specified by a first user of the communication device or a second user of the third communication device.
11. The device of claim 1, wherein the report or the message includes an identification of an outage in a second communication service provided in the communications network.
11. The device of claim 1, wherein the presentation includes an identification of an outage in a second communication service provided in the communications network.
12. The device of claim 11, wherein the report or the message includes an impact of the outage on the at least one risk.
12. The device of claim 11, wherein the presentation includes an impact of the outage on the at least one risk.
13. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: based on the representation of the at least one risk, modifying a parameter of a second communication device from a first value to a second value that is different from the first value.
13. The device of claim 1, wherein the parameter pertains to: the frequency or the frequency band, the transmission power level, the receiver sensitivity level, the modulation scheme, the demodulation scheme, and a security scheme.
14. The device of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: based on the representation of the at least one risk, modifying a parameter of a third communication device from the first value to a third value that is different from the first value and is different from the second value.
1 … modifying a parameter of a second communication device from a first value to a second value that is different from the first value,
Claims 15-19 recite limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claims 1-14 and are thus rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,143 ('143 patent) for the same reasons as noted in the table above.
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 1-20 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.
As per claim 1, upon further consideration, the language “pertaining to” is ambiguous in the context of the claim. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner, and to add clarity, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…obtaining first data of resources of a communications network;
obtaining second data of: mobility, power, streaming data, transport, access, administration, or any combination thereof;
obtaining risk-related data, the risk-related data including: engineered risks, weather-based risks, environmental risks, weather, sporting events, concerts, political activities, key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations, power failures, and equipment failures;
processing the first data and, the second data, and the risk-related data to generate a representation of at least one risk in respect of a communication service provided in the communications network;
generating a report or a message that captures the representation;
sending the report or the message to a communication device associated with personnel of the communications network; and
the sending of the report or the message directing the personnel to an area or region associated with the at least one risk for rerouting first communication services from a first path to a second path to reduce the risk.”
Claims 15 and 18 recite similar “pertaining to” language and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), for the same reasons as noted in claim 1.
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) based on their dependency to one of the above-mentioned claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, the limitation wherein the second data includes data pertaining to “weather, concerts, political activities, alarms, tickets for outages, or any combination thereof”, is not further limiting on claim 1, which describes the third data as already including such data (i.e., “…weather-based risks, environmental risks, weather, sporting events, concerts, political activities, key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations, power failures, and equipment failures”).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 1, Applicant’s claimed invention falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 07, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) as, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executing by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations”), the claimed invention could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’; and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible)). The limitations that are directed to the judicial exception (i.e., mental process) are:
obtaining first data pertaining to resources of a communications network;
obtaining second data pertaining to: mobility, power, streaming data, transport, access, administration, or any combination thereof;
obtaining third data pertaining to risk-related data, the risk-related data including: engineered risks, weather-based risks, environmental risks, weather, sporting events, concerts, political activities, key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations, power failures, and equipment failures;
processing the first data and the second data to generate a representation of at least one risk in respect of a communication service provided in the communications network;
generating a report or a message that captures the representation ….; and
sending the report or the message …;
Moreover, there are no additional claim limitations, either alone or in combination, that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. As noted above, the generic computer components (i.e., “a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executing by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations”) do not add a practical application or significantly more to judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Moreover, the use of the “a communication device”, within the further limitation of “sending the report or the message to a communication device associated with personnel of the communications network…”, written at a high-level of generality, represents insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., data outputting (see MPEP S2106.05(g) and §2106.05(g)), and thus fails to add a practical application. Moreover, the step of “sending the report to a communication device” represents well-understood routine, and conventional activity (e.g., email or text message) and thus, even in combination with the generic computer components (i.e., “processing system including a processor”), does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. As such, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2, similar to claim 1, recites further limitations directed to the judicial exception (i.e., mental process) that could be performed in the human mind, and/or using pen and paper, without reciting any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As per claim 3, similar to claim 1, the additional limitation of “sending the modified report or the modified message to the communication device, a second communication device, or a combination thereof” written at a high-level of generality, represents necessary data gathering and outputting (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea.
As per claims 4-8, similar to claim 1, there are no additional limitations that could not be performed in the human mind, and/or using pen and paper. As such, claims 4-8 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As per claims 9, the limitation “determining that the ta least one risk exceeds a threshold” could otherwise be performed in the human mind. Additionally, similar to claim 1, the additional limitation “based on the determining that the at least one risk exceeds a threshold, transmitting the report or the message to a second communication device”, written at a high-level of generality, represents necessary data gathering and outputting to generic computer components (e.g., second communication device) (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea.
As per claim 10, similar to claim 1, the additional limitation “wherein the threshold is specified by a first user of the communication device or a second user of the second communication device”, written at a high-level of generality, represents necessary data gathering and outputting (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) and does not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea
As per claims 11-12, similar to claim 1, there are no additional limitations that could not be performed in the human mind, and/or using pen and paper. As such, claims 4-8 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As per claims 13-14, the further limitations of “modifying a parameter of a second communication device from a first value to a second value…”, and “modifying a parameter of a third communication device from the first value to a third value…”, written at a high-level of generality, simply serves to link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)) without reciting a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 15-19 recite limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claims 1-14 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as noted above.
Finally, as per claim 21, similar to claim 1, but for the use of generic computer components (i.e., “a processing system including a processor”) and AI/ML (i.e., “based on a use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, or a combination therefore”), the “identifying” and “causing” limitations could otherwise be performed mentally.
Moreover, the use of generic components and AI/ML as a tool to otherwise perform the abstract idea (i.e., mental processes) do not add a practical application, or significantly more to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f), also see “2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence” 89 Fed. Reg. 58128 (July 17, 2024) and claim 2 of Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples). As such claim 21, similar to claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being direct to ineligible subject matter.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantine et al. (US 6,446,123)(“Ballantine”), in view of Obaidi et al. (US 2017/0111228)(Obaidi) and/or Magzimof et al. (US 2019/0320328)(“Magzimof”), and in further view of Aksela et al. (US 10,652,762)(“Aksela”).
As per claim 1, Ballantine teaches a device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor (see Fig. 1, ref. 140); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system (see Fig. 1, ref. 160), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining first data pertaining to resources of a communications network (see Fig. 2, 210, i.e., first data related to network infrastructure and/or policy information regarding resource of a communication entered by a data input terminal, see col. 5, lines 2-10);
obtaining second data pertaining to: mobility, power, streaming data, transport, access, administration, or any combination thereof (see col. 4, lines 52-55, i.e., operational data including traffic, read as at least transport data);
obtaining third data pertaining to risk-related data, the risk-related data including: engineered risks (i.e., network maintenance activity, see col. 5, lines 64-65) and key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations (e.g., number of dropped handoffs, see col. 5, lines 45-48, and/or certain network thresholds being reached, see col. 5, lines 54-56);
processing the first data, the second data, and the third data to generate a representation of at least one risk in respect of a communication service (i.e., a telecommunication service) provided in the communications network (i.e., predicting unacceptable network performance [of the telecommunication service] based on certain thresholds, see col. 4, lines 12-25 and col. 6, lines 35-47);
generating a report or a message that captures the representation (see col. 6, lines 35-47, also see Fig. 3);
sending the report or the message to a communication device (workstation 150, see Fig. 1) associated with personnel (i.e., network operator) of the communications network (see col. 6, lines 35-47, also see col. 3, lines 41-59, where the network management system is remote from workstation 150); and
the sending of the report or the message directing the personnel to an area or region associated with the at least one risk for rerouting first communication services from a first path to a second path to reduce the risk (i.e., “details of the problem”, see col. 6, lines 44-46, also see col. 8, lines 30-34, wherein the “cell 1” of the example alert is read as “an area or region associated with the at least one risk”).
As per claim 1, Ballantine does not expressly teach “the risk-related data including: …, weather-based risk, environment risks, weather, sporting events, concerts, political activities, …, power failures, and equipment failures”.
However, first, Ballantine does at least suggests obtaining data related to third data/risk data, including events (e.g., “Mother’s Day”, see col. 5, lines 15-25). Furthermore, as evidence by Obaidi and/or Magzimof, sporting events, concerts, and political activities (e.g., “large rally” or “public protest”), similar to Mother’s Day, were events well known in the art to increase wireless/wireline usage (see Obaidi ¶0019, and Magzimof ¶0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further obtain event data related to sporting events, concerts, and political activities, along with high traffic days such as “Mother’s Day”. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to ensure adequate resources are met for other periods of high-traffic in the network.
Moreover, in the same art of network maintenance and prediction, Aksela teaches a system that estimates a risk (e.g., “a component that is going to have problems in the near future”, see col. 5, lines 8-26) based on source data (see col. 5, lines 39-67, i.e., risk data) including at least: engineered risk (i.e., “Maintenance operations”, see col. 5, lines 58-59), weather-based risk (i.e., “weather data from regional meteorological institute”, see col. 5, lines 50-51), environment risks (i.e., environment data from Network Element locations, see col. 5, line 51), weather (i.e., “weather data from regional meteorological institute”, see col. 5, lines 50-51), … power failures (see col. 5, lines 39-49, with respect to the various alarms, and col. 7, lines 67- col. 8, line 8, which suggest the alarms relating to power failure, i.e., “power source cannot feed the NE”), and equipment failure (e.g., Cisco routers alarms, etc., see col. 5, lines 39-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ballantine and Aksela to further consider the various source data considered in Aksela. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate prediction of unacceptable network performance in Ballantine (see Ballantine, col. 6, lines 5-47).
As per claim 2, Ballantine further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
obtaining a user-generated input in respect of at least one resource included in the resources (see col. 6, lines 12-24, where the network component thresholds may be entered into data input terminal);
processing the user-generated input in conjunction with the first data and the second data to generate a modified representation of the at least one risk (see col. 6, lines 12-24, where updating the network component thresholds inherently modify the resulting alarm/risk level); and
generating a modified report or a modified message that includes the modified representation of the at least one risk (see col. 6, lines 12-24, and Fig. 3, ref. 325, which anticipated generating an updated report based the user-modified thresholds).
As per claim 3, Ballantine further wherein the operations further comprise: sending the modified report or the modified message to the communication device, a second communication device, or a combination thereof (see col. 6, lines 35-47, also see col. 3, lines 41-59, where the network management system is remote from workstation 150, and thus requires sending of the new report).
As per claim 5, Ballantine further teaches wherein the first data includes an identification of client devices that are connected to the resources (e.g., number of wireless subscribers, see col. 4, lines 54-57 and col. 5, lines 50-56).
As per claim 6, although Ballantine suggests wherein the second data includes data pertaining to events (e.g., “Mother’s Day”, see col. 5, lines 15-25), Ballantine does not expressly teach the second data includes weather, concerts, political activities, alarms, tickets for outages, or any combination thereof.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network maintenance, Aksela teaches a system that considers the impact from events including weather (see col. 6, lines 60-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Ballantine and Aksela to take as further input data on weather patterns. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate prediction of network performance as weather patterns may impact radio network equipment and thus network load (see for example Aksela, col. 5, lines 54-56).
As per claim 9, Ballantine further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that the at least one risk exceeds a threshold (i.e., predicting unacceptable network performance [of the telecommunication service] based on certain thresholds, see col. 4, lines 12-25 and col. 6, lines 35-47); and
based on the determining that the at least one risk exceeds a threshold, transmitting the report or the message to a second communication device (see Fig. 3).
As per claim 10, Ballantine further teaches wherein the threshold is specified by a first user of the communication device or a second user of the second communication device (see col. 6, lines 12-24).
As per claim 13, Ballentine does not expressly teach wherein the operations further comprise: based on the representation of the at least one risk, modifying a parameter of a second communication device from a first value to a second value that is different from the first value.
As per claim 14, Ballantine does not expressly teach wherein the operations further comprise: based on the representation of the at least one risk, modifying a parameter of a third communication device from the first value to a third value that is different from the first value and is different from the second value.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network maintenance, Aksela teaches a system for sending reconfiguration messages (i.e., parameters) to various network elements in order to configure the network elements into an alternative network configuration in preparation for a network repair/outage (see col. 8, lines 15-48, read as modifying/reconfiguring different parameters from a first value to a second and third value for respective second and third communication devices).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reconfigure nodes (i.e., first and second communication devices) by modifying different parameters into an alternative network configuration in preparation for a network repair/outage. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to minimize the impact of scheduled network maintenance in Ballantine.
Claims 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ballantine, Obaidi/Magzimof, and Aksela in further view of Meredith et al. (US 2013/0051239)(“Meredith”).
As per claim 4, Ballantine does not expressly teach wherein the report or the message includes an identification of the at least one risk originating in a first portion of the communications network, and wherein the report or the message includes a representation of an impact of the at least one risk on a second portion of the communications network.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network impact assessment, Meredith teaches generating a report (i.e., “repair ticket”) including an identification of the at least one risk originating in a first portion of the communications network (i.e., notification of a failure/communication error affecting certain sector(s), see ¶0007, see Fig. 9, ref. 902, and ¶0086, i.e., “a notification of a base station error for a sector(s)”), and wherein the report or the message includes a representation of an impact of the at least one risk on a second portion of the communications network (i.e., “priority score”, see ¶0085, i.e., “reflecting overall loss of service resulting from the potential communication error”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the report generated by Ballantine (see Fig. 3) based on the priority details generated and reported by Meredith. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide the network operator with insights on the impact of congestion/errors in particular sector(s) on the overall communication network.
As per claim 11, Ballantine does not expressly teach, however Meredith further teaches wherein the report or the message includes an identification of an outage in a second communication service provided in the communications network (see ¶0085, i.e., “reflecting overall loss of service resulting from the potential communication error”, where overall loss implies communication services provided by other sector(s), e.g., second communication service).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Ballantine and Meredith in claim 4 applies equally well to claim 11.
As per claim 12, Ballantine does not expressly teach, however Meredith further teaches wherein the report or the message includes an impact of the outage on the at least one risk (i.e., “priority score”, see ¶0085, i.e., “reflecting overall loss of service resulting from the potential communication error”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Ballantine and Meredith in claim 4 applies equally well to claim 12.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ballantine, Obaidi/Magzimof, and Aksela in further view of Klein et al. (US 2017/0339180)(“Klein”).
As per claim 7, Ballantine does not expressly teach wherein the representation of the at least one risk includes a numerical score.
As per claim 8, Ballantine does not expressly teach wherein the representation of the at least one risk is based on a color-coding scheme.
Nevertheless, representing network risks using numerical or color-coding schemes were well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Klein ¶0074).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to represent the potential network problems/risks in Ballantine (see Fig. 3, ref. 310) using a numerical score or color-coding scheme. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for easier recognition by network operators.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meredith in view of Ballantine, Obaidi/Magzimof, and Aksela.
As per claim 15, Meredith teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining first data pertaining to an outage in a first portion of a communications system (i.e., “a notification of a base station error for a sector(s)”, see Fig. 9, ref. 902, and ¶0086);
obtaining second data pertaining to a relationship between the first portion of the communications system and a second portion of the communications system (i.e., “base station neighboring the sector(s)”, see ¶0086);
obtaining third data pertaining to: mobility, power, streaming data, transport, access, or any combination thereof (see for example, ¶0042, “resources of nearby base station” (read as related to mobility and/or power), number of audio/video calls (read as streaming and/or access data), and/or “signal characteristics”, see ¶0106, which at least relates to transport characteristics);
obtaining fourth data pertaining to … sporting events, concerts … (i.e., "a sports stadium or arena that attracts a high density of subscribers for planned events”, see ¶0044);
analyzing the first data, the second data, third data and fourth data to identify a risk to communication services facilitated by the second portion of the communications system (i.e., “impact to wireless performance metrics”, see ¶0086, read as a risk, also see ¶0044, with regard to updating the repair/risk score in view of the planned events);
generating a report or a message that captures the risk and includes a recommendation for reducing the risk (i.e., “outputting a repair ticket for the sector(s) having the repair priority”, see ¶0086); and
sending the report or the message to a communication device associated with the communications system Id., and wherein the report or the message includes an indication of the risk (i.e., “repair priority”) that is specified in terms of how the risk involving a first group of an operator of the communications system impacts a second group of the operator of the communications system (see ¶0085, i.e., “reflecting overall loss of service resulting from the potential communication error”).
As per claim 15, Meredith does not expressly teach the risk-related data further including: engineered risks, weather-based risks, environmental risks, weather, … , political activities, key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations, power failures, and equipment failures.
Nevertheless, first, in the same art of network maintenance and repair, Ballantine teaches obtaining third data pertaining to risk-related data, the risk-related data including: engineered risks (i.e., network maintenance activity, see col. 5, lines 64-65) and key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations (e.g., number of dropped handoffs, see col. 5, lines 45-48, and/or certain network thresholds being reached, see col. 5, lines 54-56); and processing, inter alia, the third data to generate a representation of at least one risk in respect of a communication service (i.e., a telecommunication service) provided in the communications network (i.e., predicting unacceptable network performance [of the telecommunication service] based on certain thresholds, see col. 4, lines 12-25 and col. 6, lines 35-47).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings Meredith with the teachings of Ballantine for further obtain and analyze risk data including at least engineered risks (i.e., network maintenance activity, see col. 5, lines 64-65) and key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations (e.g., number of dropped handoffs, see col. 5, lines 45-48, and/or certain network thresholds being reached, see col. 5, lines 54-56). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to predict unacceptable network performance and thus provide more accurate or updated risk/priority score assigned to the communication error in Meredith.
Furthermore, as evidence by Obaidi and/or Magzimof, political activities (e.g., “large rally” or “public protest”), similar to sporting events and concerts, were known high-traffic events that affect wireless/wireline usage (see Obaidi ¶0019, and Magzimof ¶0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further obtains event data related to political activities (e.g., “large rally” or “public protest”), along with high traffic events such as planned sporting events or concerts, in Meredith. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to ensure adequate resources are met for other periods of high-traffic.
Moreover, in the same art of network maintenance and prediction, Aksela teaches a system that estimates a risk (e.g., a component that is going to have problems in the near future, see col. 5, lines 8-26) based on source data (see col. 5, lines 39-67, i.e., risk data) including at least: engineered risk (i.e., “Maintenance operations”, see col. 5, lines 58-59), weather-based risk (i.e., “weather data from regional meteorological institute”, see col. 5, lines 50-51), environment risks (i.e., environment data from Network Element locations, see col. 5, line 51), weather (i.e., “weather data from regional meteorological institute”, see col. 5, lines 50-51), … power failures (see col. 5, lines 39-49, with respect to the various alarms, and col. 7, lines 67- col. 8, line 8, which suggest the alarms relating to power failure, i.e., “power source cannot feed the NE”), and equipment failure (e.g., Cisco routers alarms, etc., see col. 5, lines 39-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the teachings of Meredith to further consider the various data in Aksela in considering an overall impact to a communication network. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate prediction of network performance, based on the comprehensive list of source data considered in Aksela, and thus provide a more accurate priority score in Meredith.
As per claim 16, Meredith does not expressly teach wherein the operations further comprise: based on the sending of the report or the message, implementing an action prior to the outage impacting the communication services in the second portion of the communications system.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Ballentine teaches preemptively performing actions on a communication network prior to an outage (see col. 6, lines 1-4, “schedules maintenance repairs, for example, to address predicted network problems based on a failed network component.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to preemptively perform actions on a communication network prior to an outage. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prevent network failure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Meredith, Ballantine, Obaidi/Magzimof, and Aksela, in further view of Puri et al. (US 2019/0097909)(“Puri”).
As per claim 17, Meredith does not expressly teach wherein the generating comprises incorporating the recommendation as part of an audiovisual presentation.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network incidence response, Puri teaches, in response to a particular network incident, creating a virtual “war room” (read as an audiovisual presentation) where an incident response team may collaborate to resolve the incident (see ¶0424).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporating corrective network recommendations in Meredith for discussion in a virtual “war room” (i.e., read an audiovisual presentation). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to encourage collaboration among incident response team members.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meredith in view of Manor et al. (US 2018/0239666)(“Manor”), in further view of Ballantine, Obaidi/Magzimof, and Aksela,
As per claim 18, Meredith teaches obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, a representation of a risk to a first portion of a network (see ¶0085, i.e., “reflecting overall loss of service resulting from the potential communication error”, which necessarily reflects risk to a first portion of a network, e.g., neighboring the sector(s)”, see ¶0086) based on an occurrence of an event in a second portion of the network (i.e., “a notification of a base station error for a sector(s)”, see Fig. 9, ref. 902, and ¶0086) and based on an analysis of data pertaining to: mobility (see for example, ¶0042, “resources of nearby base stations”, which anticipates resources pertaining to mobility), power (see for example, ¶0042, “resources of nearby base station”, which anticipates resources pertaining to power), streaming data (e.g., number audio/video calls, see ¶0042), transport (i.e., “signal characteristics”, see ¶0106), access (e.g., capacity, see ¶0042), … sporting events and concerts (i.e., "a sports stadium or arena that attracts a high density of subscribers for planned events”, see ¶0044); …
causing, by the processing system … , an action to be undertaken to reduce the risk from a first level to a second level (i.e., “outputting a repair ticket for the sector(s) having the repair priority”, see ¶0086), wherein the action includes sending a report or a message to a communication device associated with the network Id., and wherein the report or the message includes an indication of the risk (i.e., “repair priority”) that is specified in terms of how the risk involving a first group of an operator of the communications system impacts a second group of the operator of the communications system (see ¶0085, i.e., “reflecting overall loss of service resulting from the potential communication error”).
As per claim 18, Meredith does not expressly teach the action, i.e., sending a report, being based on determining, by the processing system, that the risk is greater than a threshold.
Nevertheless, determining that a certain impact or risk is greater than a threshold, prior to taking an action, such as the sending an alert, was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Manor ¶0003, “If the thresholds are set too low, there is an excessive number of alerts, resulting in the maintenance or security team, which tends to the alerts, commonly failing to investigate all the alerts, and possibly ignoring some or most of the alerts. As a result, most of the problems are not detected.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similar require a determination of a risk/impact being greater than a certain threshold, prior to sending an alert. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prevent inundated network maintenance staff with an excessive number of frivolous or false alarm alerts.
Moreover, as per claim 18, Meredith does not expressly teach the risk-related data further including: engineered risks, weather-based risks, environmental risks, weather, … , political activities, key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations, power failures, and equipment failures.
Nevertheless, first, in the same art of network maintenance and repair, Ballantine teaches obtaining third data pertaining to risk-related data, the risk-related data including: engineered risks (i.e., network maintenance activity, see col. 5, lines 64-65) and key performance indicator (KPI) related degradations (e.g., number of dropped handoffs, see col. 5, lines 45-48, and/or certain network thresholds being reached, see col. 5, lines 54-56); and processing, inter alia, the third data to generate a representation of at least one risk in respect of a communication service (i.e., a telecommunication service) provided in the communications network (i.e., predicting unacceptable network performance [of the telecommunication service] based on certain thresholds, see col. 4, lines 12-25 and col. 6, lines 35-47).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Meredith and Ballentine in claim 15 applies equally well to claim 18.
Furthermore, as evidence by Obaidi and/or Magzimof, political activities (e.g., “large rally” or “public protest”), similar to sporting events and concerts, were known high-traffic events that affect wireless/wireline usage (see Obaidi ¶0019, and Magzimof ¶0045).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Meredith and Obaidi and/or Magzimof in claim 15 applies equally well to claim 18.
Moreover, in the same art of network maintenance and prediction, Aksela teaches a system that estimates a risk (e.g., a component that is going to have problems in the near future, see col. 5, lines 8-26) based on source data (see col. 5, lines 39-67, i.e., risk data) including at least: engineered risk (i.e., “Maintenance operations”, see col. 5, lines 58-59), weather-based risk (i.e., “weather data from regional meteorological institute”, see col. 5, lines 50-51), environment risks (i.e., environment data from Network Element locations, see col. 5, line 51), weather (i.e., “weather data from regional meteorological institute”, see col. 5, lines 50-51), … power failures (see col. 5, lines 39-49, with respect to the various alarms, and col. 7, lines 67- col. 8, line 8, which suggest the alarms relating to power failure, i.e., “power source cannot feed the NE”), and equipment failure (e.g., Cisco routers alarms, etc., see col. 5, lines 39-49).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Meredith and Aksela in claim 15 applies equally well to claim 18.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Meredith, Manor, Ballantine, Obaidi/Magzimof, and Aksela, in further view of Klein.
As per claim 19, Meredith does not expressly teach presenting, by the processing system, the representation of the risk at the first level as part of a first report or a first message prior to the causing of the action to be undertaken; and
presenting, by the processing system, the representation of the risk at the second level as part of a second report or a second message subsequent to the causing of the action to be undertaken.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network management, Klein teaches a system for presenting a user with a risk level of a network (i.e., “network health”, see Fig. 9) before and after corrective measures are taken (see ¶0082, i.e., “after any remediation work on any system device, and/or other host with a security protection and/or health issue, that system device, and/or other host may be entered into the queue and quickly rescanned by the network scanning appliance 14 to provide data for an updated assessment of security protection and/or health by the network assessment computing device 12”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly, present using a similar health score a risk level both before and after corrective measures. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide appropriate feedback on the network risk both before and after corrective measures are taken.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21, though rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101, is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, for purpose 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103, would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, James Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-7493. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-4036.
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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441