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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nijim et al. (10,963,333).
For claims 1, 8, Nijim teaches a method and system (abstract) for mitigating anomalies (background, summary and claims) in a network device (col. 3, lines 15-40; CPE) comprising:
identifying a first pattern of log event information (col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 35) correlated to an anomaly of at least one network device (col. 3, lines 40-60) ;
selecting a first mitigation process including one or more mitigation actions (col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 15); and
instructing a first network device to monitor (col. 3, lines 40-60) its own log event information for the first pattern of log event information (col. 8, lines 30-55) and, when the first pattern of log event information is detected, to implement the first mitigation process (col. 8, line 55 – col. 9, line 5).
For claim 2, Nijim teaches identifying the first pattern of log event information comprises:
receiving log event information for the at least one network device (col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 35); and
performing string recognition for detecting log events in the log event information that match the first pattern (col. 7, line 55 – col. 8, line 10; text analytics and natural language).
For claim 3, Nijim teaches wherein instructing the first network device comprises instructing each of the at least one network device to monitor its own log event information for the first pattern of log event information (col. 8, lines 30-55) and, when the first pattern of log event information is detected, to implement the first mitigation process. (col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 15)
For claims 6, 12, Nijim teaches further comprising:
using unsupervised machine learning techniques (col. 7, line 55 – col. 8, line 10) to determine a second pattern of log event information (col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 35) correlated to a second anomaly of the at least one network device (col. 3, lines 40-60);
selecting a second mitigation process including the one or more mitigation actions (col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 15); and
instructing the first network device to monitor its own log event information for the second pattern of log event information (col. 8, lines 30-55) and, when the second pattern of log event information is detected, to implement the second mitigation process (col. 8, line 55 – col. 9, line 5).
For claims 7, 13, Nijim teaches wherein receiving log event information for the at least one network device comprises receiving log event information for at least one network device operating at a plurality of customer premises (col. 9, lines 35-60).
For claim 9, Nijim teaches that the first pattern of log event information comprises one or more events that occur within a limited time period (col. 7, line 55 – col. 8, line 15).
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) 4-5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nijim as applied to claims 2, 8 above, and further in view of Murata et al. (12,057,996).
For claims 4, 10, Nijim does not expressly disclose elements regarding a match count. Murata teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) further comprising:
when the first pattern is detected in the log event information, determining a match count (col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 20);
when the match count (col. 5, lines 20-35) meets a count threshold (col. 6, line 50 – col. 7, line 10), categorizing the first pattern (col. 5, lines 30-45); and
based on the category, causing the first network device to perform an upload of detailed log information from the first network device (col. 10, lines 15-35).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Murata in order to provide improvements to handling failures independent from central network management (col. 1, lines 55-67).
For claims 5, 11, Nijim teaches that determining the match count comprises correlating the first pattern to customer complaints and service calls information (col. 6, lines 5-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
