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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24-26, 28-30, 32-33, 36-37, 39-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN111556083).
As per claim 24, Wang shows the use a method performed by a network node, comprising: obtaining alarm data comprising a specific type of alarm; detecting an alarm flood of the alarm data; obtaining data from at least one vendor related to the alarm data; and determining at least one root cause of the alarm flood of alarm data based on the data from at least one vendor and the alarm data (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 25, Wang shows wherein detecting an alarm flood of alarm data comprises at least one of: detecting the alarm flood of alarm data based on a threshold, or detecting the alarm flood of alarm data based on a machine learning algorithm (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 26, Wang shows wherein the alarm data comprises alarm data of a communication network (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 28, Wang shows the use of wherein obtaining data from at least one vendor related to the alarm data comprises at least one of: obtaining the data from the at least one vendor related to the alarm data regularly, or obtaining the data from the at least one vendor related to the alarm data when the alarm flood of the alarm data is detected (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”). .
As per claim 29, Wang shows the use of wherein the data from the at least one vendor comprises at least one of: network device configuration data, network device diagnosis result, network data, or environment data (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”). .
As per claim 30, Wang shows the use of wherein the network device configuration data comprises at least one of: network device type, network device geographical information, network device property, network device scene property, electricity motor room that a network device is connected to, project that a network device belongs to, network device network mode, network device installation date, network device transmission mode, network device remote radio unit type, network device version, building that covered by a network device, or a distance between a network device and nearest coastline (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 32, Wang shows the use of wherein the network data comprises at least one of: network diagnosis log, an identity of a default router of a network device, or a name of a network management system that performs alarm data detection (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 33, Wang shows the use of wherein the network diagnosis log comprises node information in a path obtained by a network measurement tool(e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 36, Wang shows the use of wherein the network device diagnosis result comprises at least one of: a network device diagnosis result during an alarm active period, or a network device diagnosis result during an alarm ceased period(e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 37, Wang shows the use of wherein the network device diagnosis result during the alarm active period comprises at least one of: maintenance work checking of a network device, construction work checking of a network device, default router status checking of a network device, or traffic status checking in neighbor network device (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 39, Wang shows the use of wherein determining at least one root cause of the alarm flood of alarm data based on the data from at least one vendor and the alarm data comprises: generating respective list of pattern data for at least one alarm based on the data from at least one vendor and the alarm data; and based on the respective list of pattern data for at least one alarm, determining at least one pattern data combination that can characterize the alarm flood of the alarm data as the at least one root cause of the alarm flood of alarm data (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claim 40, Wang shows the use of wherein the pattern data has a uniform format or is processed into the uniform format (e.g., computer program instructions and stored data (i.e., 0 and 1s)).
As per claim 41, Wang shows the use of wherein determining the pattern data combination comprises: determining respective score of respective candidate pattern combination based on a distribution difference of the respective candidate pattern combination between normal period data and abnormal period data as well as an distribution of the respective candidate pattern combination in the abnormal period data; and based on the respective score of respective candidate pattern combination, determining at least one pattern data combination with a score above a threshold as the at least one root cause of the alarm flood of alarm data (e.g., description of figure 1 in the “Detailed Description”).
As per claims 42 and 43, they are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 27, 31, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN111556083) in view of Dilip (20220385525).
As per claim 27, Wang does not specifically show the use of wherein the alarm data of the communication network comprises heart beat failure alarm data, however Dilip does show heart beat failure alarm data (e.g. paragraph 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang with the above limitations of Dilip because it would help stakeholders and users to effectively manage the production process, wherein by collecting and storing alarms and operational events, identifying and eliminating noise, efficient alarm management can help eliminate nuisance alarms and allow stakeholders to identify and respond to process issues before they turn into critical problems.
As per claim 31, Wang does show wherein the network device geographical information comprises at least one of: a city that a network device locates, a district that a network device locates, or a geographical cluster identifier of a network device, however Dilip does show the network device geographical information comprises at least one of: a city that a network device locates, a district that a network device locates, or a geographical cluster identifier of a network device (e.g., paragraph 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang with the above limitations of Dilip because it would help stakeholders and users to effectively manage the production process, wherein by collecting and storing alarms and operational events, identifying and eliminating noise, efficient alarm management can help eliminate nuisance alarms and allow stakeholders to identify and respond to process issues before they turn into critical problems.
As per claim 34, Wang does not show wherein the network device comprises a base station, however Dilip does show a base station (e.g., paragraph 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang with the above limitations of Dilip because it would help stakeholders and users to effectively manage the production process, wherein by collecting and storing alarms and operational events, identifying and eliminating noise, efficient alarm management can help eliminate nuisance alarms and allow stakeholders to identify and respond to process issues before they turn into critical problems.
As per claim 35, Wang does not show wherein the environment data comprises at least one of: a precipitation level, a wind level, or a temperature level, however Dilip does show temperature level (e.g., paragraph 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang with the above limitations of Dilip because it would help stakeholders and users to effectively manage the production process, wherein by collecting and storing alarms and operational events, identifying and eliminating noise, efficient alarm management can help eliminate nuisance alarms and allow stakeholders to identify and respond to process issues before they turn into critical problems.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN111556083) in view of Miwa (20110264424).
As per claim 38, Wang does not show wherein the network device diagnosis result during the alarm ceased period comprises at least one of: software crash event checking of a network device, restart event checking of a network device, upgrade event checking of a network device, local transmission issue checking of a network device, or remote transmission issue checking of a network device, however Miwa shows the use of at least one of: software crash event checking of a network device, restart event checking of a network device, upgrade event checking of a network device, local transmission issue checking of a network device, or remote transmission issue checking of a network device (e.g., paragraphs 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang with the above limitations of Miwa because it would allow new (additional/updating) failure cases to be added and, by using the model, capable of appropriately and efficiently achieving an abnormality diagnosis and detection, an instruction for operation and maintenance, and others.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Follansbee whose telephone number is (571)272-3964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 AM - 5:30 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.
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 (INUSA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights