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 .
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,553,092 (Pearce et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,430,506 (Schuenzel et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,971,665 (Zhang et al.).
With respect to claims 1, 14 and 20, the combination of Pearce et al./Schuenzel et al./Zhang et al. disclose:
A method for determining a migration plan of a first migration phase for a source telephony system to a target telephony system, wherein the source telephony system is to be migrated in at least two migration phases ( note Col.1, lines 20 – 26 of Pearce et al.) (moving in phases) and Figs. 3 and 4. If this is not agreed, note Col. 6 lines 10 – 67 of Schuenzel et al. (migrating in waves and a schedule is indication of migrating in waves or phases). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated the teachings of Schuenzel et al. into the Pearce et al. method and system as another known method of migrating in phases or waves) the method comprising:
obtaining a configuration of the source telephony system, the configuration comprises information about entities in the source telephony system, wherein for each entity of the entities, the configuration indicates one or more attributes and values thereof, wherein the entities comprise devices and users (note Col. 7, line 40 – Col. 8, line 60 and Col.9, lines 5 – 15 of Pearce et al.) ;
generating an entities graph based on the configuration, the entities graph comprising nodes and edges, each node of the nodes represents an entity of the source telephony system, each two nodes of the nodes that represent two corresponding entities that have corresponding values for at least one attribute are connected by an edge (note Col. 8, lines 46 – 60 of Pearce et al.) ;
obtaining a threshold on a number of entities to be migrated to the target telephony system during the first migration phase (it is noted that all devices and systems have thresholds, in addition, note Col. 9, lines 37 – 49 of Pearce et al.) ;
determining, based on the entities graph, a cluster of nodes, wherein said determining the cluster of nodes comprises Note Col. 6, lines 15 – 30 of Schuenzel et al. (bundle):
determining a first maximal density cluster in the entities graph for a first cluster size, the first cluster size not exceeding the threshold, the first maximal density cluster having a first density level (Col. 7, lines 1 – 51; note also Fig. 5 all from Zhang et al.)( a densest subgraph corresponds to a cluster of nodes having maximal density);
determining a second maximal density cluster in the entities graph for a second cluster size, the second cluster size not exceeding the threshold, the second maximal density cluster having a second density level (Col. 7, lines 1 – 51; note also Fig. 5 all from Zhang et al.)( a densest subgraph corresponds to a cluster of nodes having maximal density);
It would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into the Pearce et al./ Schuenzel et al. system and method in order to select migration clusters or groups with maximum cohesion or relationships and optimizing grouping of related entities. and
selecting the cluster of nodes between the first maximal density cluster and the second maximal density cluster, wherein said selecting is performed based on the first cluster size, the second cluster size, the first density level and the second density level ( note the above and Col. 10, lines 5 – 20 of Pearce et al. and Col. 6 , lines 30 - 45 of Zhang et al. and Col. 7, lines 15 – 35 of Schuenzel et al.) ;
adding to the migration plan of the first migration phase entities represented by nodes included in the cluster of nodes (note Col. 11, lines 5 – 25 of Pearce et al.); and
providing the migration plan to a migration coordinator (Note Col.9, lines 5 – 8 and lines 50 – 65 of Pearce et al.), whereby enabling execution of the first migration phase, whereby a hybrid telephony system is operated, the hybrid telephony system comprises the source telephony system and the target telephony system. (See Col. 3, lines 40 – 60 and Col. 6 lines 30 – 60 of Pearce at el.).
With respect to claims 2 and 15, note Col. 7, lines 15 – 51 of Zhang et al. (iterative removal of subgraphs).
With respect to claims 3 and 16, note Col. 6, lines 48 – 60 of Schuenzel et al.
With respect to claim 4, note Col. 9, lines 17 – 22 and lines 50 – 65 of Pearce et al.
With respect to claims 5 – 7 and 17, note Col. 5, lines 44 – 51 and Col. 8, lines 30 - 41 of Pearce et al.
With respect to claim 8, note at least the Abstract of Schuenzel et al. and Col. 1, lines 38 – 62 of Schuenzel et al. If it turns out that the best scheduling is the weekend (obviously) so be it.
With respect to claim 9, note the Abstract of Zhang. Whatever algorithm is used, substituting a DKS algorithm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as such only entails the substitution of one known algorithm for another.
With respect to claims 10, 12, 13, 19 note the rejections above.
With respect to claims 11 and 18, note Col. 2, lines 43 – 62 and Col. 6, lines 30 – 45 of Pearce et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs. of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 - 272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 -7484.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
21Mar2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights