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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nováczki et al. A Scoring Method for the Verification of Configuration Changes in Self-Organizing Networks, published in Mobile Networks and Management [cited in IDS filed March 26, 2025, NPL Cite No. 1] in view of Yang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0115392.
Claim 1,
Nováczki discloses
obtaining a record of first modifications in respect of a self-organizing network (SON) (Section 2.1, Figure 1 discloses an Assessment Request containing CM Changes);
analyzing the record a first time (section 2.3 discloses an assessment interval for the received set of CM changes), the analyzing of the record the first time occurring while the SON is subject second modifications (section 2.4 discloses other concurrent sets of CM changes made to the SON)
wherein the analyzing is based on a monitoring of at least one parameter (Section 3.1- disclose monitoring KPIs to determine CM changes and performance), and
determining, based on the analyzing of the record the first time, whether the first modifications are acceptable relative to a threshold, a requirement, a specification, or any combination thereof, resulting in a first determination (section 2.5 performs Scoring of CM changes and determines acceptable changes.)
Although Nováczki disclose substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to explicitly disclose
A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
the at least one parameter pertaining to:
latency, throughput, a signal to noise plus interference ratio, loading, capacity, or any combination thereof.
In an analogous art, Yang discloses
A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system (para 0058- discloses memory, a processor and instructions), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
the at least one parameter pertaining to:
latency, throughput, a signal to noise plus interference ratio, loading, capacity, or any combination thereof (para 0060- discloses monitoring latency in a SON).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to substitute the latency metric of Yang for the KPIs of Nováczki to monitoring changes within the SON in a predictable manner.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
Claims 2 and 15,
wherein the first determination indicates that at least one modification included in the first modifications is unacceptable relative to the threshold, the requirement, the specification, or any combination thereof (Nováczki section 2.5 performs Scoring of CM changes. Negative scores are punished and recommended for undoing).
Claim 20,
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the examining of the first actions occurs with respect to a log or record of historical data. (Nováczki section 2.1- the assessment is made by analyzing CM change history)
Claims 3-5, 8,10-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nováczki et al. A Scoring Method for the Verification of Configuration Changes in Self-Organizing Networks, published in Mobile Networks and Management [cited in IDS filed March 26, 2025, NPL Cite No. 1] in view of Yang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0115392 in view of Jayanti Venkata et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/00088021 [cited in IDS filed March 26, 2025, Patent Publication Cite No. 1].
Claims 3 and 16,
Although Nováczki/Yang disclose substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to explicitly disclose
initiating a timeout period based on the first determination indicating that the at least one modification included in the first modifications is unacceptable.
In an analogous art, Jayanti Venkata discloses
initiating a timeout period based on the first determination indicating that the at least one modification included in the first modifications is unacceptable. (para 0009- discloses a grace period for non-compliance detection)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, would find it obvious to combine the grace period of Jayanti Venkata with the Nováczki system to produce the predictable result of provided a grace period for remediation of non-compliant network states with a SON.
Claim 4,
The device of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: analyzing the record a second time based on an expiration of the timeout period (Jayanti Venkata para 0093- reassessment of compliance level is periodically performed during the grace period).
Claim 5,
The device of claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the analyzing of the record the second time, that the at least one modification included in the first modifications is acceptable relative to the threshold, the requirement, the specification, or any combination thereof, resulting in a second determination. (Jayanti Venkata para 0093- reassessment of compliance level is periodically performed during the grace period. 2 possible outcomes of reassessment are compliant and non-compliant).
Same motivation as claim 3.
Claim 8,
The device of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: initiating a remedial action based on the first determination. (Jayanti Venkata para 0081- Action coordinator 238 may perform remedial actions based on assessing the time period for a non-compliance.)
Same motivation as claim 3.
Claim 10,
The device of claim 8, wherein the initiating of the remedial action comprises: suspending or terminating functionality associated with an application that is associated with the SON (Jayanti Venkata para 0012- access to resources are blocked in response to non-compliance. Para 0038- resources includes software).
Same motivation as claim 1.
Claim 11,
The device of claim 8, wherein the initiating of the remedial action comprises: issuing a message, an alert, or a report directed to personnel associated with the SON (Jayanti Venkata para 0009- non-compliance message is sent to a user).
Same motivation as claim 1.
Claims 6-7, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nováczki et al. A Scoring Method for the Verification of Configuration Changes in Self-Organizing Networks, published in Mobile Networks and Management [cited in IDS filed March 26, 2025, NPL Cite No. 1] in view of Yang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0115392 in view of Jayanti Venkata et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0088021 [cited in IDS filed March 26, 2025, Patent Publication Cite No. 1] in view of Tsvetkov et al. Verification of Configuration Management Changes in Self-Organizing Networks, published in IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 13, no. 4 [cited in IDS filed March 26, 2025, NPL Cite No. 2].
Claims 6 and 17,
Although Nováczki/Yang/Jayanti Venkata disclose substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the second determination is based on an initiation of a remedial action to address the at least one modification.
In an analogous art, Tsvetkov discloses
wherein the second determination is based on an initiation of a remedial action to address the at least one modification (pg. 887, fig. 2- an assessment is performed to determine an undo in cell 1)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, would find it obvious to combine the reassessment of reverted changes of Tsvetkov with the Nováczki/Yang/Jayanti Venkata system to produce the predictable result of verifying the effectiveness of change revisions in a SON.
Claim 7,
The device of claim 6, wherein the SON initiates the remedial action. (Jayanti Venkata para 0008- remedial action)
Same motivation as claim 3.
Claim 9,
Although Nováczki/Yang/Jayanti Venkata disclose substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to explicitly disclose
The device of claim 8, wherein the initiating of the remedial action comprises: generating a command to reverse the at least one modification; and transmitting the command to the SON.
In an analogous art, Tsvetkov discloses
The device of claim 8, wherein the initiating of the remedial action comprises: generating a command to reverse the at least one modification; and transmitting the command to the SON. (pg. 886-887, Corrections windows sending undo requests to SON to revert changes)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to combine the reversion process of Tsvetkov with the Nováczki/Yang/Jayanti Venkata system to produce the predictable result of undo changes in a SON based on performance.
Claim 18,
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the remedial action applies to an application, infrastructure of a communication network, a user equipment, or any combination thereof. (Tsvetkov pg. 886-887- CM undo changes)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nováczki et al. A Scoring Method for the Verification of Configuration Changes in Self-Organizing Networks, published in Mobile Networks and Management in view of Yang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0115392 in view of Tsvetkov et al. Verification of Configuration Management Changes in Self-Organizing Networks, published in IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 13, no. 4.
Claim 12,
Although Nováczki/Yang discloses substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to explicitly disclose
The device of claim 1, wherein the analyzing is based on a use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any combination thereof.
In an analogous art, Tsvetkov discloses
The device of claim 1, wherein the analyzing is based on a use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any combination thereof. (pg. 886, section 2- discloses pattern-based learning for anomalies)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, would find it obvious to combine the profile learning of Tsvetkov with the Nováczki/Jayanti Venkata system to produce the predictable result of pattern-based detection of anomalies in a SON.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nováczki et al. A Scoring Method for the Verification of Configuration Changes in Self-Organizing Networks, published in Mobile Networks and Management in view of Yang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0115392 in view of Van Der Hoeven et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0135940.
Claim 13,
Although Nováczki/Yang disclose substantial limitations of the claimed invention, it fails to explicitly disclose
The device of claim 1, wherein a first rate of modifications that are made to the SON is based on a second rate pertaining to analysis of the modifications.
In an analogous art, Van Der Hoeven discloses
wherein a first rate of modifications that are made to [a network] is based on a second rate pertaining to analysis of the modifications. (para 0068-the modifications to a network are selective throttled based on a toleration score. The score is a measure of the impact of the implemented changes.)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, would find it obvious to combine the method of change throttling of Van Der Hoeven with the Nováczki/Yang system to produce the predictable result of moderating changes within a network based on the performance of the changes.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,106 in view of Yang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0115392.
Present Application
Patent 12,284,106
Claim 1
A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining a record of first modifications in respect of a self-organizing network (SON);
analyzing the record a first time, the analyzing of the record the first time occurring while the SON is subject to second modifications, and
determining, based on the analyzing of the record the first time, whether the first modifications are acceptable relative to a threshold, a requirement, a specification, or any combination thereof, resulting in a first determination.
Claim 1
A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining a record of first modifications in respect of a self-organizing network (SON);
analyzing the record a first time, the analyzing of the record the first time occurring while the SON is subject to second modifications; and
determining, based on the analyzing of the record the first time, whether the first modifications are acceptable relative to a threshold, a requirement, a specification, or any combination thereof, resulting in a first determination,
wherein the first modifications and the second modifications are included as part of a plurality of tasks that are executed in respect of the SON, wherein the execution of the plurality of tasks is subject to a time limit, wherein a time that it would take to serially execute and test each of the tasks included in the plurality of tasks would exceed the time limit, and wherein the execution of the plurality of tasks occurs in an amount of time that is less than the time limit.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Patent 12,284,106 discloses substantial limitations of the claimed invention except:
wherein the analyzing is based on a monitoring of at least one parameter, the at least parameter pertaining to: latency, throughput, a signal to noise plus interference ratio, loading, capacity, or any combination thereof.
In an analogous art, Yang discloses
In an analogous art, Yang discloses
wherein the analyzing is based on a monitoring of at least one parameter, the at least parameter pertaining to: latency, throughput, a signal to noise plus interference ratio, loading, capacity, or any combination thereof.
(para 0060- discloses monitoring latency in a SON).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to substitute the latency metric of Yang for the KPIs of Patent 12,284,106 to monitoring changes within the SON in a predictable manner.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 2.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 14.
Claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 13.
Claim 18 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 17.
Claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M COUSINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7746. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00pm 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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/JMC/Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights