DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 9/22/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-13, 18 and 21-24 have been amended and no claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16 and 18-24 are pending.
The Amendment to the Title and the Amendment to the Specification filed 9/22/26 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments have overcome the previously presented Objections to the Title/Specification and Claim Objections.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
Paper Submitted
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 9/22/26 are considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16 and 18-24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant traverses the 35 USC § 101 Claim Rejections with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 23 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite software per se or instructions divorced from a machine and that the components are claimed as part of a concrete computing architecture, not as an abstract collection of functions. However, the examiner respectfully traverses. As stated in the previous Office action and restated below, the system and user equipment recited in claims 1 and 23 merely comprise software components without associating the software components to any physical/hardware structure(s). Furthermore, the Specification and Drawings do not clearly associate the claimed software components to any physical/hardware structure(s). For example, Figure 2 clearly shows the data parameter engine, the processing engine and the database as separate components from processor(s) 202 and memory 204. Based on the explanation provided above, the 35 USC § 101 Claim Rejections are maintained by the examiner.
Second, Applicant argues that Trivedi does not teach “an interface configured to allow a user to select a plurality of parameters and key performance indicators (KPIs) from a selection menu for examination and specify a time period and frequency of analysis” as recited in the amended claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in amended claims 12, 23 and 24. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed invention utilizes the user-selected parameters and KPIs as inputs to an automated change impact analysis workflow, where the selected KPIs are subsequently processed to determine true average impact data that quantifies the impact of network changes over the selected time period. However, the examiner respectfully traverses. Trivedi discloses generating a graphical user interface that is output to a display by way of a terminal associated with network management platform for a user and causing a report detail and node selection interface to be displayed. The report detail and node selection interface is configured to receive user inputs regarding one or more parameters that correspond to various report detail options and user inputs that correspond to node selection(s) for which the report is to be generated and causing the appropriately linked KPIs to be included in the list of KPIs according to the KPI group that is selected for display in the graphical user interface and causing the graphical user interface to display a scheduling interface that processes user inputs associated with a duration and/or frequency that the performance report is to be run (Figs. 1 and 3-5, [0027], [0035]-[0036], [0041]-[0043], [0056]-[0058], [0070], [0077]-[0079]). In other words, Trivedi clearly discloses a graphical user interface that allows a user to select parameters, key performance indicators (KPIs), time period and frequency of analysis. Furthermore, the claimed language does not recite that the user-selected parameters and KPIs are utilized as inputs to an automated change impact analysis workflow that quantifies the impact of network changes over the selected time period. Based on the teachings recited above and the explanation provided, Trivedi does in fact teach the claimed subject matter.
Third, Applicant argues that Trivedi does not teach “a data parameter engine configured to store and manage the plurality of parameters and the KPIs” as recited in the amended claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in amended claims 12, 23 and 24. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed data parameter engine maintains and manages the selected parameters and KPIs as structured inputs for subsequent automated change-impact analysis processing. However, the examiner respectfully traverses. Trivedi discloses a data repository that has information stored therein that includes stored system data, rules defining various KPIs, network functions capable of being implemented in the network involving one or more of network usage, timing, connected devices, location, network resource consumption, cost data, example network KPIs, KPI monitoring profiles corresponding to one or more users, KPI evaluation profiles corresponding to one or more users, etc. (Fig. 1, [0026], [0028], [0030], [0033], [0071], [0085]). Again, the claim language does not specifically recite that the claimed data parameter engine maintains and manages the selected parameters and KPIs as structured inputs for subsequent automated change-impact analysis processing. The claim language merely recites an engine storing and managing parameters and KPIs. Based on the teachings recited above and the explanation provided, Trivedi does in fact teach the claimed subject matter.
Fourth, Applicant argues that Trivedi does not teach “a processing engine configured to determine a true average impact data for each selected KPI” as recited in the amended claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in amended claims 12, 23 and 24. Specifically, Applicant argues that Trivedi does not teach deriving a change-impact metric representing the effect of a network modification over a selected analysis period. However, the examiner respectfully traverses. Trivedi discloses causing a performance report to be generated based on the input parameter(s), node selection input(s), duration input(s), frequency input(s), and/or report format selection(s). (Figs. 1-2 and 7, [0047], [0050], [0102]-[0103]). In other words, a performance report is generated for each selected KPI based on input parameter(s), node selection input(s), duration input(s), frequency input(s), and/or report format selection(s). Furthermore, the claim language does not recite any specific input(s) and/or algorithm(s) that are used to determine the true average impact data for each selected KPI. The claim language merely recites determining a data value for each KPI. Based on the teachings recited above and the explanation provided, Trivedi does in fact teach the claimed subject matter.
Fifth, Applicant argues that Trivedi does not teach “a database…for storing the true average impact data representing a respective change impact for each selected KPI for said time period” as recited in the amended claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in amended claims 12, 23 and 24. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed database stores analytical impact results produced by change-impact processing. However, the examiner respectfully traverses. Trivedi discloses a data repository that has information stored therein that includes stored system data, rules defining various KPIs, network functions capable of being implemented in the network involving one or more of network usage, timing, connected devices, location, network resource consumption, cost data, example network KPIs, KPI monitoring profiles corresponding to one or more users, KPI evaluation profiles corresponding to one or more users, etc. (Figs. 1-2 and 7, [0026], [0028], [0030], [0033], [0047], [0050], [0071], [0085], [0102]-[0103]). Furthermore, the claim language does not specifically recite that the claimed database stores analytical impact results produced by change-impact processing. The claim language merely recites a database storing value data for each selected KPI for a time period. Based on the teachings recited above and the explanation provided, Trivedi does in fact teach the claimed subject matter.
Finally, with respect to dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13-14, 16 and 18-22, Applicant presents a general argument stating that the claims are directed to an automated change impact analysis workflow that quantifies the impact of network changes on selected KPIs over a selected time period. However, the examiner respectfully traverses. As stated above, the claim language does not specifically recite any specific algorithm(s) that are used to quantify an impact of network changes on selected KPIs over a selected time period. Based on the teachings recited above and the explanation provided, the 35 USC § 102 and 103 Claim Rejections are maintained by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 23 lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category.
A system and user equipment in claims 1 and 23 comprise an interface (software), a data parameter engine (software), a processing engine (software) and a database (structured collection of information); thus, the claim does not meet the definition of a machine and thereby does not fall under any of the patent eligible statutory categories. A machine is “a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices”.
All dependent claims are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-12, 14 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Trivedi et al.” (US PGPUB 2024/0160835) (Hereinafter Trivedi).
With respect to claim 1, Trivedi teaches a system (system 100; Fig. 1, [0023]) for implementing automated change impact analysis in a network (Abstract), the system comprising:
an interface (generating a graphical user interface that is output to a display by way of a terminal associated with network management platform for a user; Fig. 1, [0027]) configured to allow a user to select a plurality of parameters (causing a report detail and node selection interface to be displayed. The report detail and node selection interface is configured to receive user inputs regarding one or more parameters that correspond to various report detail options and user inputs that correspond to node selection(s) for which the report is to be generated; Figs. 1 and 3, [0035], [0056]-[0058]) and key performance indicators (KPIs) (causing the appropriately linked KPIs to be included in the list of KPIs according to the KPI group that is selected for display in the graphical user interface. One or more of the KPIs are selected for inclusion in the performance report from the list of KPIs to a performance report generation workspace in the graphical user interface; Figs. 1 and 4, [0041]-[0042], [0070]) from a selection menu for examination (one or more parameter selection inputs are received by way of a drill-down menu in the report detail and node selection interface; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0036]) and specify a time period and frequency of analysis (causing the graphical user interface to display a scheduling interface. Processing one or more user inputs associated with a duration and/or frequency that the performance report is to be run and/or a format by which the performance report is to be output; Figs. 1 and 5, [0043], [0077]-[0079]);
a data parameter engine configured to store and manage the plurality of parameters and the KPIs (data repository has information stored therein that includes stored system data, rules defining various KPIs, network functions capable of being implemented in the network involving one or more of network usage, timing, connected devices, location, network resource consumption, cost data, example network KPIs, KPI monitoring profiles corresponding to one or more users, KPI evaluation profiles corresponding to one or more users, etc.; Fig. 1, [0026], [0028], [0030], [0033], [0071], [0085]);
a processing engine coupled to the data parameter engine, the processing engine is configured to determine a true average impact data for each selected KPI (causes the performance report to be generated based on the input parameter(s), node selection input(s), duration input(s), frequency input(s), and/or report format selection(s). The generated performance report is then optionally output based on the selected format, and the generated performance report is caused to be included in a list of performance reports available for selection by way of the graphical user interface; Figs. 1-2 and 7, [0047], [0050], [0102]-[0103]); and
a database coupled to the processing engine for storing the true average impact data representing a respective change impact for each selected KPI for said time period (data repository has information stored therein that includes stored system data, rules defining various KPIs, network functions capable of being implemented in the network involving one or more of network usage, timing, connected devices, location, network resource consumption, cost data, example network KPIs, KPI monitoring profiles corresponding to one or more users, KPI evaluation profiles corresponding to one or more users, etc.; Figs. 1-2 and 7, [0026], [0028], [0030], [0033], [0047], [0050], [0071], [0085], [0102]-[0103]).
With respect to claim 3, Trivedi teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein a visual representation of the true average impact data is displayed on the interface (graphical user interface 200 is a performance report list. The performance report list comprises a list of performance reports that are pre-existing and available for viewing and/or modification. The performance report list includes high level details regarding the information included in the performance report such as report name, report type, domain, network service provider name, node, technology, duration, frequency, and geography/aggregation level; Figs. 1-2, [0050], [0085]).
With respect to claim 4, Trivedi teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the selection menu includes at least a geographic region, a list of customized cells, one or more vendors, and/or one or more technologies (graphical user interface 300 comprises a plurality of parameter input fields and a plurality of node and aggregation selection input fields. The plurality of parameter input fields comprise one or more fields configured to receive a report name, report type, a report mode, a domain, a network service provider name, a network technology, or some other suitable detail. The plurality of node and aggregation selection inputs comprise fields to receive an input indicative of at least one of a geographical location, a cluster name, a node aggregation level, a country level, a region, a state/prefecture, a city, a group center, a site status, a node aggregation, a frequency band, a site category, an interface name, an exclusion category, or some other suitable parameter for identifying a node or group of nodes.; Figs. 1 and 3, [0057]-[0058], [0061]-[0063]).
With respect to claim 8, Trivedi teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein said time period for analysis is selected by the user from a set of predefined options comprising per day, Billing Busy Hour (BBH), and Network Busy Hour (NBH) (causing the graphical user interface to display a scheduling interface. Processing one or more user inputs associated with a duration and/or frequency that the performance report is to be run and/or a format by which the performance report is to be output. The frequency is one or more of every 15 minutes, daily, weekly, monthly, hourly, at a bouncing busy hour, at a network busy hour, at a busiest day, or some other custom frequency timing; Figs. 1 and 5, [0043], [0077]-[0079]).
With respect to claim 9, Trivedi teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing engine filters the KPIs based on a pre-defined criteria (Based on the user inputs receive by way of the parameter input fields and the node selection and aggregation selection input fields in graphical user interface 200, network management platform 101 causes graphical user interface 400 to display and populate a list of one or more KPIs associated with monitoring the communication network. The KPIs included in the KPI list in user interface 400 are those that network management platform 101 recognizes as being associated with the one or more parameter selection inputs and the node selection inputs; Figs. 1 and 4, [0040]-[0042], [0070]-[0071]).
With respect to claim 10, Trivedi teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein a visual representation of change impact data is one or more of the following: a time-series chart depicting the respective change impact for each KPI over said time period; a heatmap visually representing the respective change impact across selected geographic region(s) or customized cell(s); and a table summarizing calculated change impact data for each KPI (graphical user interface 200 is a performance report list. The performance report list comprises a list of performance reports that are pre-existing and available for viewing and/or modification. The performance report list includes high level details regarding the information included in the performance report such as report name, report type, domain, network service provider name, node, technology, duration, frequency, and geography/aggregation level; Figs. 1-2, [0050], [0085], [0103]-[0104]).
With respect to claim 11, Trivedi teaches the system as claimed in claim 8, further comprising: generating a detailed report summarizing the automated change impact analysis, including: the plurality of parameters; calculated impact values for each KPI; visual representation of change impact data; and a table summarizing the calculated impact values for each KPI (graphical user interface 200 is a performance report list. The performance report list comprises a list of performance reports that are pre-existing and available for viewing and/or modification. The performance report list includes high level details regarding the information included in the performance report such as report name, report type, domain, network service provider name, node, technology, duration, frequency, and geography/aggregation level; Figs. 1-2, [0050], [0085], [0103]-[0104]).
With respect to claim 12, Trivedi teaches a method for implementing automated change impact analysis in a network (Abstract), the method comprising:
displaying, by an interface (generating a graphical user interface that is output to a display by way of a terminal associated with network management platform for a user; Fig. 1, [0027]), a selection menu for enabling a selection of a plurality of parameters by a user (causing a report detail and node selection interface to be displayed. The report detail and node selection interface is configured to receive user inputs regarding one or more parameters that correspond to various report detail options and user inputs that correspond to node selection(s) for which the report is to be generated; Figs. 1 and 3, [0035], [0056]-[0058]);
presenting, based on the selection, a list of key performance indicators (KPIs) corresponding to the plurality of parameters within the interface (causing the appropriately linked KPIs to be included in the list of KPIs according to the KPI group that is selected for display in the graphical user interface. One or more of the KPIs are selected for inclusion in the performance report from the list of KPIs to a performance report generation workspace in the graphical user interface; Figs. 1 and 4, [0041]-[0042], [0070]);
receiving an input by the user to select one or more KPIs from said list of KPIs and a time period for processing (causing the graphical user interface to display a scheduling interface. Processing one or more user inputs associated with a duration and/or frequency that the performance report is to be run and/or a format by which the performance report is to be output; Figs. 1 and 4-5, [0041]-[0043], [0070], [0077]-[0079]);
determining, by a processing engine, a true average impact data corresponding to each of the one or more selected KPIs (causing the graphical user interface to display a scheduling interface. Processing one or more user inputs associated with a duration and/or frequency that the performance report is to be run and/or a format by which the performance report is to be output; Figs. 1 and 5, [0043], [0077]-[0079]); and
displaying, by the interface, a visual representation of the true average impact data representing a respective change impact for each of the one or more selected KPIs for said time period (graphical user interface 200 is a performance report list. The performance report list comprises a list of performance reports that are pre-existing and available for viewing and/or modification. The performance report list includes high level details regarding the information included in the performance report such as report name, report type, domain, network service provider name, node, technology, duration, frequency, and geography/aggregation level; Figs. 1-2, [0050], [0085], [0103]-[0104]).
The limitations of claims 14, 18 and 20-22 are rejected in the analysis of claims 4 and 8-11 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
With respect to claim 19, Trivedi teaches the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the selection menu includes a drop-down menu (selection inputs are received by way of a drill-down menu; [0036], [0061], [0063]-[0064], [0093], [0095]).
The limitations of claims 23 and 24 are rejected in the analysis of claim 12 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
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 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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi in view of “Nagar et al.” (US PGPUB 2023/0236922) (Hereinafter Nagar).
With respect to claim 2, Trivedi teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. Trivedi does not teach wherein a Machine Learning (ML) module is configured to identify and remove anomalies in the determined true average impact data.
However, Nagar teaches wherein a Machine Learning (ML) module is configured to identify and remove anomalies in the determined true average impact data (utilizing natural language input in the processing and evaluation of informational logs to eliminate or mitigate the anomalies; [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate removing anomalies to Trivedi because Trivedi discloses determining anomalies ([0019]) and Nagar suggests removing anomalies ([0083]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Nagar in the Trivedi system in order to ensure validity and stability of a network.
The limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi in view of “Trivedi et al.” (US PGPUB 2023/0246901) (Hereinafter Trivedi2).
With respect to claim 6, Trivedi teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the interface further allows the user to: select at least one vendor and at least one technology from a predefined list or enter custom specifications for analysis (graphical user interface 300 comprises a plurality of parameter input fields and a plurality of node and aggregation selection input fields. The plurality of parameter input fields comprise one or more fields configured to receive a report name, report type, a report mode, a domain, a network service provider name, a network technology, or some other suitable detail. The plurality of node and aggregation selection inputs comprise fields to receive an input indicative of at least one of a geographical location, a cluster name, a node aggregation level, a country level, a region, a state/prefecture, a city, a group center, a site status, a node aggregation, a frequency band, a site category, an interface name, an exclusion category, or some other suitable parameter for identifying a node or group of nodes.; Figs. 1 and 3, [0057]-[0058], [0061]-[0063]).
Trivedi does not teach select KPIs for analysis based on downlink, uplink, latency, and/or total traffic.
However, Trivedi2 teaches select KPIs for analysis based on downlink, uplink, latency, and/or total traffic (a user wants to detect and/or predict anomalies for one KPI according to network traffic; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate selecting KPIs for analysis based on different criteria to Trivedi because Trivedi discloses determining anomalies ([0019]) and Trivedi2 suggests selecting KPIs for analysis based on different criteria ([0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Trivedi2 in the Trivedi system in order to improve network performance analysis.
The limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Dhaka et al. US 2024/0205097. Discloses providing new site impact analysis for network improvement.
Ponnada et al. US 2019/0147096. Discloses generating and rendering interactive analysis.
Singh et al. US 2019/0102719. Discloses graphical user interfaces for dynamic information technology performance analytics and recommendations.
Asba et al. US 2020/0236006. Discloses guided interface for configuring key performance indicators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
October 6, 2026
