CTNF 18/805,428 CTNF 90575 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/08/2026 has been entered. Examiner Notes (1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient. (2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See new reference of Kraus ). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 8, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRUONG et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0330279 A1) in view of Kraus et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0019341 A1), further in view of Cherkas (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0328875 A1) . Regarding claim 1, TRUONG teaches method comprising: obtaining, by a processing system including at least one processor, a natural language request for a network topology visualization associated with a communication network (paragraph [0004] "creating a query given an input, such as natural language text" , Noted, ‘for’ indicates intended use; Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003) “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. Therefore intended use limitations are not required to be taught, see MPEP 2111.04 [R-3])); generating, by the processing system, a prompt based upon the natural language request in accordance with a prompt mapping function (paragraph [0026], one or more of the prompts described herein can be used to prompt different language models. To generate a query for user request 220, request processing module 202 causes prompt generation module 206 to generate a prompt that includes user request); wherein the prompt mapping function comprises a term mapping function that matches at least one term in the natural language request to at least one data field of at least one data table of a communication network database system (paragraph [0026], one or more of the prompts described herein can be used to prompt different language models; to generate a query for user request, requesting module causes prompt generation module to generate a prompt that includes user request; also see paragraph [0028], prompt generation module to generate a prompt that includes specific instructions on which columns of table in database and/or which formulas language model should use when generating a query; the map includes mapping between key terms and definitions that each specify column(s) of tables in database 114 and/or operation(s) in a programming language; for example, a definition could specify column(s) of tables that correspond to a particular key term); applying, by the processing system, the prompt as an input to a generative model implemented by the processing system to generate a query (paragraph [0026], request processing module 202 can use language model 204 to generate the query. Language model 204 is a machine learning model trained to perform one or more natural language processing tasks, such as query generation ............ inputs the generated prompt into language model 204 or returns the prompt to request processing module 202 for input into language model 204. After receiving the prompt as input, language model 204 outputs the query for user request 220. Language model 204 is able to generate the query because language model 204 was trained on training data that included example queries); applying, by the processing system, the query to the communication network database system to obtain a query result (paragraphs [0032] -[0033], request processing module 202 generates a response (e.g., response 222) to a user request (e.g., user request 220) by querying database 114 using a query that is generated by prompting language model). TRUONG does not explicitly disclose: wherein the term mapping function comprises an ontology, the ontology comprising a feature graph database, the feature graph database including first nodes representing data features of the communication network database system, second nodes representing natural language terms, and edges representing correspondence between respective ones of the data features and respective ones of the natural language terms. Kraus teaches: wherein the term mapping function comprises an ontology, the ontology comprising a feature graph database, the feature graph database including first nodes representing data features of the communication network database system, second nodes representing natural language terms, and edges representing correspondence between respective ones of the data features and respective ones of the natural language terms (paragraph [0016]-[0117], after natural language input is parsed into named entities, then relevancy is calculated by mapping those entities to nodes within an ontology; also see paragraph [0135], nodes of an ontology or portion thereof, e.g., the nodes 202-220 may represent key concepts, such as person, opportunity, company, and so on; edges (also called connection) between nodes represent the relationships between entities; also see paragraph [0162], mapping the tokenized user input, along with contextual information to a set of candidate entities within the ontology; also see paragraph [0163]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the term mapping function comprises an ontology, the ontology comprising a feature graph database, the feature graph database including first nodes representing data features of the communication network database system, second nodes representing natural language terms, and edges representing correspondence between respective ones of the data features and respective ones of the natural language terms into query analysis of TRUONG. Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the term mapping function comprises an ontology, the ontology comprising a feature graph database, the feature graph database including first nodes representing data features of the communication network database system, second nodes representing natural language terms, and edges representing correspondence between respective ones of the data features and respective ones of the natural language terms for predicting the likelihood that a word, phrase, or other potentially ambiguous input refers to a particular entity (Kraus, paragraph [0011], line 10-12). TRUONG and Kraus do not explicitly disclose: generating, by the processing system, the network topology visualization from the query result and presenting, by the processing system, the network topology visualization via at least one display device. Cherkas teaches: generating, by the processing system, the network topology visualization from the query result (paragraph [0087], performs a search of the constructs display in the topology mapping 400; the data returns from the one or more queries is then used to generate the topology mapping 400’, which is a filtered view of the topology mapping 400 being a display of only the constructs associated with the search term); and presenting, by the processing system, the network topology visualization via at least one display device (Fig. 4C, paragraph [0087], performs a search of the constructs display in the topology mapping 400; the data returns from the one or more queries is then used to generate the topology mapping 400’, which is a filtered view of the topology mapping 400 being a display of only the constructs associated with the search term; also see paragraph [0088], it should be understood that the system of the disclosure may be filtered according to multiple search terms or parameters). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include generating, by the processing system, the network topology visualization from the query result and presenting, by the processing system, the network topology visualization via at least one display device into presenting insights of TRUONG. Motivation to do so would be to include generating, by the processing system, the network topology visualization from the query result and presenting, by the processing system, the network topology visualization via at least one display device to provide operational visibility of a network that spans one or more cloud computing environments (Cherkas, paragraph [0117], line 2-4) . Regarding claim 2, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the natural language request for the network topology visualization comprises a request for a first type of network topology visualization from among a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations (Cherkas, Fig. 4C, paragraph [0087], performs a search of the constructs display in the topology mapping 400; the data returns from the one or more queries is then used to generate the topology mapping 400’, which is a filtered view of the topology mapping 400 being a display of only the constructs associated with the search term; also see Fig. 3A-5G, paragraph [0075], the dashboard 300 and other visualizations discussed in Figs. 4A-5G are generated as a result of user input requesting such visualizations). Regarding claim 3, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 2, further teach wherein the plurality of available types of network topology visualizations includes: a physical network map; a logical network map; a virtual private network topology map; a network route impairment map; a root cause network topology visualization; a network route map comprising one or more network routes; a layer 2 network map; a layer 3 network map; or a network inventory map (Cherkas, Fig. 3A-5G, paragraph [0087], performs a search of the constructs display in the topology mapping 400; the data returns from the one or more queries is then used to generate the topology mapping 400’, which is a filtered view of the topology mapping 400 being a display of only the constructs associated with the search term). Regarding claim 4, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the network topology visualization includes at least two network nodes and at least one network link between the at least two network nodes (Cherkas, Fig. 3A-4H). Regarding claim 5, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the network topology visualization includes at least one geographic map component (Cherkas, Fig. 3A-3C). Regarding claim 6, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the network topology visualization includes at least one animation (Cherkas, Fig. 3A-5G, also see paragraph [0023], displaying the changes between two points in time, e.g., t1 and t2; generating a visual that highlight the changes between network t1 and t2; the term ‘highlight’ may refer to any visual indicator of combination of visual indicators, such as color-coding constructs having changed parameters, varying the size of constructs having changed parameters,…). Regarding claim 8, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach: wherein the generating of the network topology visualization includes: determining a network event from the query result (Cherkas, Fig. 4C, paragraph [0087], performs a search of the constructs display in the topology mapping 400; the data returns from the one or more queries is then used to generate the topology mapping 400’, which is a filtered view of the topology mapping 400 being a display of only the constructs associated with the search term; also see paragraph [0088], it should be understood that the system of the disclosure may be filtered according to multiple search terms or parameters); generating a second query from the network event (Cherkas, Fig. 4C, paragraph [0087], performs a search of the constructs display in the topology mapping 400; the data returns from the one or more queries is then used to generate the topology mapping 400’, which is a filtered view of the topology mapping 400 being a display of only the constructs associated with the search term; also see paragraph [0088], it should be understood that the system of the disclosure may be filtered according to multiple search terms or parameters; also see Fig. 5A-5C, paragraph [0111], the illustration of the charts 510,50i of the display portion may be filtered according to input received via the display portion 504, the category selection and search term input fields of display portion 506; also see paragraph [0112], in response to receiving user input corresponding to the selection of destination IP address 10.101.0.52, the topology system logic 138 filters the data displayed in each of the charts 510-i-510i to display network traffic information pertaining to the selection); and applying the second query to the communication network database system to obtain a second query result, wherein the generating of the network topology visualization is from both the query result and the second query result (Cherkas, Fig. 4C, paragraph [0087], performs a search of the constructs display in the topology mapping 400; the data returns from the one or more queries is then used to generate the topology mapping 400’, which is a filtered view of the topology mapping 400 being a display of only the constructs associated with the search term; also see paragraph [0088], it should be understood that the system of the disclosure may be filtered according to multiple search terms or parameters; also see Fig. 5A-5C, paragraph [0111], the illustration of the charts 510,50i of the display portion may be filtered according to input received via the display portion 504, the category selection and search term input fields of display portion 506; also see paragraph [0112], in response to receiving user input corresponding to the selection of destination IP address 10.101.0.52, the topology system logic 138 filters the data displayed in each of the charts 510-i-510i to display network traffic information pertaining to the selection). Regarding claim 16, TCA as modified by TRUONG and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the generative model comprises a large language model-based machine learning model (TRUONG, paragraph [0003], performing various natural language processing tasks; Large Language Models (LLMs) are one type of language model). Regarding claim 18, TCA as modified by Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the communication network database system comprises a network topology graph database (Cherkas, Fig. 1). As per claims 19 and 20, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 1 and are similarly rejected . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRUONG et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0330279 A1) in view of Kraus et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0019341 A1), and Cherkas (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0328875 A1), further in view of Balasubramanian et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0165659 A1) . Regarding claim 7, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the network topology visualization includes a forecast of at least one network condition. Balasubramanian teaches: wherein the network topology visualization includes a forecast of at least one network condition (Fig. 3B, paragraph [0055], having determined a root source, the monitoring application can update the status of application 201, service 225, and service 233 to indicate they are healthy but for their dependency on service 241; service 241 may be output by the monitoring application in a notification as a problem dependency; also see Fig. 15, paragraph [0178], visualization may provide a health report indicating operating metrics and predictions regarding the status of the monitored application and/or its dependencies; services 221, 223, and 227 appear to have normal operation; but service 225 is being impacted by downstream failures, and may have a low health of 40%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the network topology visualization includes a forecast of at least one network condition into presenting insights of TCA. Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the network topology visualization includes a forecast of at least one network condition to provide monitoring of dependencies without requiring additional connections and modifications to integrate monitoring services (Balasubramanian, paragraph [0015], line 11-13). Regarding claim 9, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the network event comprises: a hard failure; a soft failure; a partial failure; or at least one network performance indicator crossing an alert threshold. Balasubramanian teaches: wherein the network event comprises: a hard failure; a soft failure; a partial failure; or at least one network performance indicator crossing an alert threshold (Fig. 3B, paragraph [0055], having determined a root source, the monitoring application can update the status of application 201, service 225, and service 233 to indicate they are healthy but for their dependency on service 241; service 241 may be output by the monitoring application in a notification as a problem dependency; also see Fig. 15, paragraph [0178], visualization may provide a health report indicating operating metrics and predictions regarding the status of the monitored application and/or its dependencies; services 221, 223, and 227 appear to have normal operation; but service 225 is being impacted by downstream failures, and may have a low health of 40%; also see paragraph [0054], the monitoring application may use a set of unhealthy operating status threshold associated with metrics to recognize when the service is unhealthy, problematic operating state; also see paragraph [0090], the monitoring device may detect that the application has an unhealthy status and determine to generate a report and/or notification identifying a potential root cause of the unhealthy state of the application; also see paragraph [0149]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the network event comprises: a hard failure; a soft failure; a partial failure; or at least one network performance indicator crossing an alert threshold into presenting insights of TCA. Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the network event comprises: a hard failure; a soft failure; a partial failure; or at least one network performance indicator crossing an alert threshold to provide monitoring of dependencies without requiring additional connections and modifications to integrate monitoring services (Balasubramanian, paragraph [0015], line 11-13) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRUONG et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0330279 A1) in view of Kraus et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0019341 A1), and Cherkas (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0328875 A1), further in view of George et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0077549 A1) . Regarding claim 10, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the generating of the network topology visualization includes mapping at least a portion of the natural language request to a particular network topology visualization type among a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations. George teaches: wherein the generating of the network topology visualization includes mapping at least a portion of the natural language request to a particular network topology visualization type among a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations (paragraph [0084], visualization type is determined from natural language request; the request may specific a particular visualization type; also see pargraph [0091], if the graphic visualization type selected is a pie chart, a pie chart may be generated to show the data values within the chart, and may have any graphic visualization attributes, that have been identified). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the generating of the network topology visualization includes mapping at least a portion of the natural language request to a particular network topology visualization type among a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations into presenting insights of TCA. Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the generating of the network topology visualization includes mapping at least a portion of the natural language request to a particular network topology visualization type among a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations to generate graphic visualizations from natural languages queries (George, paragraph [0002], line 6-7). Regarding claim 11, TRUONG as modified by Kraus, Cherkas and George teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 10, further teach: wherein the generating of the network topology visualization includes mapping at least a portion of the natural language request to a scope of the particular network topology visualization type (George, paragraph [0084], visualization type is determined from natural language request; the request may specific a particular visualization type; also see pargraph [0091], if the graphic visualization type selected is a pie chart, a pie chart may be generated to show the data values within the chart, and may have any graphic visualization attributes, that have been identified; also see paragraph [0094], graphic visualization generation component outputs or receives graphic visualization, displaying the data attribute or corresponding data attribute values and any graphic visualization attributes in accordance with the graphic visualization type) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRUONG et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0330279 A1) in view of Kraus et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0019341 A1), and Cherkas (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0328875 A1), further in view of TCA et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0077582 A1) . Regarding claim 12, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the generating of the network topology visualization is via a second generative model that is configured to generate instructions in accordance with a network topology visualization platform. TCA teaches: wherein the generating of the network topology visualization is via a second generative model that is configured to generate instructions in accordance with a network topology visualization platform (paragraph [0206], the LLM may be used to select the best visualization by entering a prompt, such as, “for presenting this data on a chart, what is the best representation (e.g., time series, bar chart, area chart, line chart) for presenting to a user?” also see Fig. 10; in combination with the network topology visualization taught by Cherkas, it reads on as claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the generating of the network topology visualization is via a second generative model that is configured to generate instructions in accordance with a network topology visualization platform into post-query result of TRUONG. Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the generating of the network topology visualization is via a second generative model that is configured to generate instructions in accordance with a network topology visualization platform provide users with direct answers, contextual insights, and automated remediation suggestions based on the user's specific role and interaction history (TCA, paragraph [0003], line 12-14). Regarding claim 14, TRUONG as modified by Kraus, Cherkas and TCA teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 12, further teach wherein the generating of the network topology visualization includes: applying a prompt to the second generative model in accordance with the natural language request for the network topology visualization along with supplemental prompt content associated with the network topology visualization platform (TCA, paragraph [0206], the LLM may be used to select the best visualization by entering a prompt, such as, “for presenting this data on a chart, what is the best representation (e.g., time series, bar chart, area chart, line chart) for presenting to a user?”). Regarding claim 15, TRUONG as modified by Kraus, Cherkas and TCA teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 14, further teach wherein the second generative model outputs an instruction to cause the network topology visualization platform to render the network topology visualization. (TCA, paragraph [0206], the LLM may be used to select the best visualization by entering a prompt, such as, “for presenting this data on a chart, what is the best representation (e.g., time series, bar chart, area chart, line chart) for presenting to a user?”; the selecting visualization for some of the insights; also see Fig. 10; while Cherkas, Fig. 3A-5G, paragraph [0075], the dashboard 300 and other visualizations discussed in Figs. 4A-5G are generated as a result of user input requesting such visualizations). Regarding claim 17, TRUONG as modified by Kraus and Cherkas teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the applying of the prompt as the input to the generative model to generate the structured query further comprises: generating supplemental prompt content associated with the communication network database system. TCA teaches: wherein the applying of the prompt as the input to the generative model to generate the structured query further comprises: generating supplemental prompt content associated with the communication network database system (paragraph [0206], the LLM may be used to select the best visualization by entering a prompt, such as, “for presenting this data on a chart, what is the best representation (e.g., time series, bar chart, area chart, line chart) for presenting to a user?”); and applying the supplemental prompt content as an additional input to the generative model (paragraph [0206], the LLM may be used to select the best visualization by entering a prompt, such as, “for presenting this data on a chart, what is the best representation (e.g., time series, bar chart, area chart, line chart) for presenting to a user?”; the selecting visualization for some of the insights; also see Fig. 10) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the applying of the prompt as the input to the generative model to generate the structured query further comprises: generating supplemental prompt content associated with the communication network database system; and applying the supplemental prompt content as an additional input to the generative model into post-query result of TRUONG. Motivation to do so would be to include generating supplemental prompt content associated with the communication network database system; and applying the supplemental prompt content as an additional input to the generative model to provide users with direct answers, contextual insights, and automated remediation suggestions based on the user's specific role and interaction history (TCA, paragraph [0003], line 12-14) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRUONG et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0330279 A1) in view of Kraus et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0019341 A1), Cherkas (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0328875 A1) and TCA et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0077582 A1), further in view of George et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0077549 A1) . Regarding claim 13, TRUONG as modified by Kraus, Cherkas and TCA teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 12, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the network topology visualization platform includes a catalog of: a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations; and a plurality of configurable parameters for the plurality of available types of network topology visualizations. George teaches: wherein the network topology visualization platform includes a catalog of: a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations (paragraph [0084], visualization type is determined from natural language request; the request may specific a particular visualization type; also see pargraph [0091], if the graphic visualization type selected is a pie chart, a pie chart may be generated to show the data values within the chart, and may have any graphic visualization attributes, that have been identified; also see paragraph [0094], graphic visualization generation component outputs or receives graphic visualization, displaying the data attribute or corresponding data attribute values and any graphic visualization attributes in accordance with the graphic visualization type); and a plurality of configurable parameters for the plurality of available types of network topology visualizations (paragraph [0084], visualization type is determined from natural language request; the request may specific a particular visualization type; also see pargraph [0091], if the graphic visualization type selected is a pie chart, a pie chart may be generated to show the data values within the chart, and may have any graphic visualization attributes, that have been identified; also see paragraph [0094], graphic visualization generation component outputs or receives graphic visualization, displaying the data attribute or corresponding data attribute values and any graphic visualization attributes in accordance with the graphic visualization type). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the network topology visualization platform includes a catalog of: a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations; and a plurality of configurable parameters for the plurality of available types of network topology visualizations into presenting insights of TCA. Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the network topology visualization platform includes a catalog of: a plurality of available types of network topology visualizations; and a plurality of configurable parameters for the plurality of available types of network topology visualizations to generate graphic visualizations from natural languages queries (George, paragraph [0002], line 6-7). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm. 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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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. /KEN HOANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 2 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 3 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 4 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 5 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 6 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 7 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 8 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 9 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 10 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 11 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 12 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 13 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 14 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 15 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 16 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/805,428 Page 17 Art Unit: 2168
Prosecution Insights