CTNF 18/947,026 CTNF 73897 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. Notice for all Patent Application as subject to 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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 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, 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 Kontes et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0373515 A1) in view of Kim et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0285771 A1). As to claim 1, Kontes et al teach a method (figures 4s-5s), comprising: retrieving data associated with operation of a network; identifying issues associated with the network (figures 4B & 5B, pars. 0131-0138, monitoring input/output data, obtaining additional data, and indicating the faults); grouping the issues into clusters based upon similarity of the issues (par. 0335, grouping root cause of faults based on similar monitoring metrics); assigning root causes to each of the clusters, wherein a root cause assigned to a cluster corresponds to a cause of an issue represented by the cluster; and executing an action for resolving the root cause of the issue (pars. 0153, 0157-0163, 0178, 0334-0335, identifying the root cause of the faults in the groups and processing the actions to address the root cause pf the faults). However, Kontes et al do not teach that converting the data into a series of Boolean values, wherein a Boolean value represents whether a condition is met or not; and interpreting the series of Boolean values to identify issues associated with the network. Kim et al teach a method, comprising: converting the data into a series of Boolean values, wherein a Boolean value represents whether a condition is met or not; and interpreting the series of Boolean values to identify issues associated with the network (pars. 0101-0104, figure 9, pars. 0191-0194, converting the data into a series of Boolean values and using them to identify issues in the network). 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 Kim et al as stated above with the method of Kontes et al for converting the data into a series of Boolean values and using them to identify issues in the network because it would have provided better troubleshooting process to a system to quickly identify the network issues, and improved response time for the troubleshooting process and overall efficiency. As to claim 2, Kim et al teach that generating a key based upon a set of Boolean values representing network insight for the network; and evaluating the key to identify the issue (pars. 0101-0104, figure 9, pars. 0191-0194, using Boolean expression to identify the issue). 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 Kim et al as stated above with the method of Kontes et al for converting the data into a series of Boolean values and using them to identify issues in the network because it would have provided better troubleshooting process to a system to quickly identify the network issues, and improved response time for the troubleshooting process and overall efficiency. As to claim 3, Kontes et al teach that executing the action further comprises: generating task instructions for issue resolution; and providing the task instructions to a user to perform (figures 4B & 5B, par. 0112, providing an action to solve a fault ). As to claim 4, Kim et al teach that the network is a communications network, further comprising: generating network insights based upon the series of Boolean values; labeling network insights as either a symptom or a cause; and determining the root cause based upon the network insights and labels (pars. 0101-0104, figure 9, pars. 0191-0194, determining the root cause using Boolean expression). 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 Kim et al as stated above with the method of Kontes et al for converting the data into a series of Boolean values and using them to identify issues in the network because it would have provided better troubleshooting process to a system to quickly identify the network issues, and improved response time for the troubleshooting process and overall efficiency. As to claim 5, Kontes et al teach that the grouping further comprises: grouping issues together into the cluster based upon the issues corresponding to a same root cause, network equipment, and timeframe (par. 0335, grouping the network faults). As to claims 6-7, Kontes et al teach that applying a hierarchy to the issues and the clusters to determine the root causes, and applying a hierarchy to the issues and the clusters to assign the issues to task instructions for issue resolution (pars. 0192-0193, 0377-0383, faults sorted according to a hierarchy). As to claims 8-9, Kim et al teach that the data is network data and further comprising: periodically retrieving and converting new network data into a plurality of series of Boolean values stored as information within a data store; and processing the information within the data store to trigger execution of a workflow (pars. 0080, 0092-0093, 0101-0104); and also teach that applying a condition trigger function to the series of Boolean values to trigger issue identification and clustering for assigning an issue identification identifier for an identified issue to resolve; and utilizing the issue identification identifier to provide instructions for performing an automated troubleshooting process for the identified issue (par. 0091, figure 9, pars. 0191-194, 0308-0312, periodically retrieving and converting new network data into the series of the Boolean values). 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 Kim et al as stated above with the method of Kontes et al for converting the data into a series of Boolean values and using them to identify issues in the network because it would have provided better troubleshooting process to a system to quickly identify the network issues, and improved response time for the troubleshooting process and overall efficiency. As to claim 10, Kontes et al teach that in response to receiving a request for on-demand issue identification, identifying the root cause and executing the action to generate a response for the request with instructions for resolving the root cause (pars. 0131, 0153, 0193, 0335, identifying a root cause of the faults and propose actions to address the root cause). As to claims 11-17, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-10 above, since claims 11-17 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 1-10, and claims 11-17 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-10. As to claims 18-20, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 and 8-10 above, since claims 18-20 are merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the claims 1 and 8-10, and claims 18-20 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1 and 8-10. Additional References The examiner as of general interest cites the following references. a. Agarwal et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0019322 A1. b. Knotes et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0373515 A1. c. Bachu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0310177 A1. d. Siddiqi et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0162315 A1. e. Kim et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0285717 A1. f. Wang et al, U.S. Patent No. 12,021,722 B2. g. Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,743,393 B2. 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 2453June 04, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/947,026 Page 2 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/947,026 Page 3 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/947,026 Page 4 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/947,026 Page 5 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/947,026 Page 6 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/947,026 Page 8 Art Unit: 2453
Prosecution Insights