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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Kochiev et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0128999 A1) in view of Boutros et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0280121 A1).
As to claim 1, Kochiev et al teach a method comprising: detecting a network-related issue in a network of a plurality of network nodes based on an output of one or more machine learning (ML) models, the one or more ML models operating on telemetry data obtained from the respective network nodes (figure 1, pars. 0025-0027, detecting a network issue by ML model using telemetry data); obtaining a correlation between the network-related issue and a service, an activity, or a status of one or more network nodes from among the plurality of network nodes, the correlation identifying a context of the network- related issue; and sending, to the one or more network nodes, an in-context alert based on the context of the network-related issue (pars. 0016-0018, 0044, 0047, 0059, correlating between network issue and service and determining an anomaly of the network issue and sending an alert based on the anomaly of the network issue).
However, Kochiev et al do not explicitly teach that obtaining a correlation between the network-related issue and a service, an activity, or a status of one or more network nodes from among the plurality of network nodes in relation to the service layer, the logical layer, and the physical layer of the multilayer network representation, the correlation identifying a context of the network- related issue in relation to the service layer, the logical layer, and the physical layer.
Boutros et al disclose a multilayer network representation of the network including a service layer, a logical layer, and a physical layer (figure 1, par. 0028, disclosing the types of layers); obtaining a correlation between the network-related issue and a service, an activity, or a status of one or more network nodes from among the plurality of network nodes in relation to the service layer, the logical layer, and the physical layer of the multilayer network representation, the correlation identifying a context of the network- related issue in relation to the service layer, the logical layer, and the physical layer; and sending, to the one or more network nodes, an in-context alert based on the context of the network-related issue (pars. 0014, 0020-0021, figures 1-2, par. 0028, detecting a failure of a link, correlating with network issue and network service in relation to the network layers, and notifying the link failure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Boutros et al as stated above with the method of Kochiev et al for obtaining a correlation between a network issue and a service in relation to the network layer and identifying a context of the network issue in relation to the network layer because it would have provided better communication process to a user to quickly identify a network issue and a routing decision for decreasing response time and potential delay, and improved overall efficiency.
As to claim 2, Kochiev et al teach that providing a computer-executable framework for detecting the network-related issue and obtaining the correlation between the network-related issue and the service, the activity, or the status of the one or more network nodes, the computer-executable framework including at least an ML model repository, an inferencing engine, and a specialized server component (par. 0022, figure 2, pars. 0034-0038, discloses ML model and associated network components).
As to claim 3, Kochiev et al teach that the plurality of network nodes includes a plurality of computing nodes, and wherein the providing of the computer-executable framework includes providing a specialized client component associated with each respective computing node (figure 1, pars. 0019 & 0022-0023).
As to claim 4, Kochiev et al teach that collecting, by the specialized client component, telemetry data pertaining to each respective computing node; and forwarding the telemetry data to the specialized server component (figure 1, pars. 0025 & 0032-0033, collecting and forwarding the telemetry data).
As to claim 5, Boutros et al et al teach that obtaining information pertaining to the service layer, the logical layer, and the physical layer of the multilayer network representation, the obtained information indicating the network-related issue associated with a network node from among the plurality of network nodes, the network-related issue causing performance degradation on the network (pars. 0014, 0020-0021, figures 1-2, par. 0028, detecting a failure of a link, correlating with network issue and network service in relation to the network layers, and notifying the link failure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Boutros et al as stated above with the method of Kochiev et al because it would have provided better communication process to a user to quickly identify a network issue and a routing decision for decreasing response time and potential delay, and improved overall efficiency.
As to claim 6, Kochiev et al teach that accessing at least one ML model from the ML model repository; and accessing the telemetry data from the specialized server component, wherein the detecting of the network-related issue includes performing inference, by the inferencing engine, on the telemetry data using the at least one ML model (pars. 0004-0005, 0017,0025, 0035-0036, ML model using the telemetry data).
As to claim 7, Boutros et al et al teach that the obtaining of the correlation between the network- related issue and the service, the activity, or the status of the one or more network nodes in relation to the service layer, the logical layer, and the physical layer includes correlating the network-related issue with the service performed by the one or more network nodes in the service layer, the activity performed by the one or more network nodes in the logical layer, and the status of the one or more network nodes in the physical layer (pars. 0014, 0020-0021, figures 1-2, par. 0028, detecting a failure of a link, correlating with network issue and network service in relation to the network layers, and notifying the link failure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Boutros et al as stated above with the method of Kochiev et al because it would have provided better communication process to a user to quickly identify a network issue and a routing decision for decreasing response time and potential delay, and improved overall efficiency.
As to claim 8, Kochiev et al teach that the sending of the in-context alert based on the context of the network-related issue includes suggesting a troubleshooting action to be performed regarding the network-related issue (pars. 0044 & 0059, providing solution for network issue).
As to claims 9-12 and 16-19, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-8 above, since claims 16-19 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 1-8, and claims 9-12 and 16-19 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-8.
As to claims 13-15, Kochiev et al disclose different types of the telemetry data (figure 1, pars. 0017, 0027-0029, 0039).
As to claim 20, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claim 1 above, since claim 20 is merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the claim 1, and claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claim 1.
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
a. Vasudevan et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0187640 A1.
b. Li et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,075,929 B1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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 http://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights