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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 04/03/2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 1-7, 11, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “performing/adding” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations “receiving, retrieving, sending” are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
• No, the limitation “receiving, retrieving, sending” are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claims 2-7, they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
As to claim 11, “monitoring” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As to claim 12, “Normalizing” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), or could be done in the mind.
As to claims 15, 16, 17, and 18, they are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1,2, 6, and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to the independent claims, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the parsed and formatted first alert data” and “the first database.”
As to claims 4, 12, and there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the first database.”
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent 12,265,449.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, using a computing system and from at least one first software-based network probe among a first plurality of software-based network probes, a first alert associated with a first device among a plurality of layer 4 devices that is each disposed within at least one first network among a plurality of networks, the layer 4 devices corresponding to open systems interconnection ("OSI") model's transport layer, the first alert comprising first alert data (see claim 1);
performing, using the computing system and an enrichment system, enrichment of the first alert data, by:
retrieving first enrichment data from one or more second databases, the first enrichment data comprising at least one of first device data associated with the first device or first network data associated with a network in which the first device is disposed (see claim 1); and
adding the first enrichment data to the parsed and formatted first alert data stored in the first database to form first consolidated alert data (see claim 1); and
sending, using the computing system, the first consolidated alert data to a fault management system for display to a user to facilitate addressing of the first alert by the user (see claim 1).
For claims 2-18, please see claims 2-18 of U.S. Patent 12,265,449.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20150019913 A1) in view of McNaughton (US 20080052393 A1).
As to claim 1, Singh teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, using a computing system and from at least one first software-based network probe among a first plurality of software-based network probes (see paragraph 0046, disclosing a server sending an alert to an event server; see paragraphs 0022-0026, disclosing a server can run software (software based)), a first alert associated with a first device among a plurality of layer 4 devices that is each disposed within at least one first network among a plurality of networks, the layer 4 devices corresponding to open systems interconnection ("OSI") model's transport layer, the first alert comprising first alert data (see Fig. 1A disclosing multiple networks and paragraphs 0011 and 0018, disclosing layers of an OSI based networks, including a transport layer (layer 4), see paragraph 0047, disclosing information in the alert (alert data));
performing, using the computing system and an enrichment system, enrichment of the first alert data, by:
retrieving first enrichment data, the first enrichment data comprising at least one of first device data associated with the first device or first network data associated with a network in which the first device is disposed (see paragraphs 0046-0066, disclosing generating a system alert with information regarding alerts from different layers; the examiner interprets the data is retrieved as it is used to generate an alert); and
adding the first enrichment data to the parsed and formatted first alert data to form first consolidated alert data (see paragraphs 0046-0066, disclosing generating a system alert with information regarding a related alert from a different layer than a critical alert; the examiner interprets the data is retrieved as it is used to generate an alert); and
sending, using the computing system, to a user to facilitate addressing of the first alert by the user (see paragraphs 0046-0066, disclosing sending the system alert to support teams for help in correcting the alert).
Singh does not explicitly teach the enrichment data is retrieved from one or more second databases and storing the formatted data in a database. However, McNaughton teaches the use of databases in storing network information (see paragraph 0241). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Singh with the methods of McNaughton because networking information stored in databases can be use to generate alerts (see paragraph 0241)
Singh does not explicitly teach that the first consolidated alert data to a fault management system for display. However, the examiner takes official notice of computers with displays for communicating information to users.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine *** with the use of a computer to receive an alert for display because it enables communication of problem information to teams such as those in *** so they can help resolve the issues.
As to claim 2, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach the computing system comprises at least one of a network management system server, a node broker system, a probe manager, the fault management system, a network operations center ("NOC") computing system, a server over a network (see Singh throughout, disclosing an event server), a cloud computing system, or a distributed computing system (see throughout).
As to claim 3, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach the plurality of networks comprises two or more disparate networks utilizing different alert management protocols and different fault management protocols (see Singh paragraphs 0012 and 0063-0066 and figs 1A and 5, showing the differing layers sending differing alerts and that independent layers and that corrective actions are for a particular technology layer).
As to claim 5, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach the first consolidated alert data comprises real-time or near-real-time consolidated alert data, wherein the fault management system comprises a real-time fault management system ("RFM") that displays the real-time or near-real-time consolidated alert data (see Singh Fig. 7A indicating there is no delay in outputting the system alert other than to check for related alerts; the examiner interprets this corresponds to a “near-real-time consolidated alert data”).
As to claim 6, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach the plurality of layer 4 devices comprises at least one of a layer 4 switch, a gateway device, a network node, a gateway node, a firewall, an optical network switch and routing platform, a wavelength division multiplexing ("WDM") -based optical transport network system, or a network transmission system (see Fig. 1, disclosing different layer servers).
As to claim 7, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach the first plurality of software-based network probes comprises at least one of one or more translation language protocol ("TL1") -based software-based network probes, one or more passive software-based network probes configured to passively receive alert data, one or more active software-based network probes configured to actively poll and/or ping layer 4 devices for alert data, or one or more combination software-based network probes that combine capabilities of the passive and active software-based network probes (see Singh fig. 1 and paragraphs 0022-0026, disclosing a server can run software).
As to claim 8 the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach, generating, using the computing system, one or more second software-based network probes among the first plurality of software-based network probes (see Singh paragraphs 0019-0025, disclosing that layers can have devices that can run monitor a layer).
As to claim 9, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach the one or more second software-based network probes comprise the at least one first software-based network probe (see Singh paragraphs 0019-0025, disclosing that a layer server can other devices that are a part of it to monitor a layer).
As to claim 11, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach monitoring, using at least one of the computing system or a probe manager, the first plurality of software-based network probes (see Singh paragraph 0046, disclosing an event server that receives alerts form layer servers)
As to claim 12, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach normalizing, using the computing system, the first consolidated alert data relative to a plurality of consolidated alert data that is stored in the first database (see Singh paragraphs 0051-0055, disclosing finding other alters form other layers and combing the information a critical alter to show it chronologically or sorted relative to other alerts).
As to claim 14, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach providing, using the computing system:
a search tool configured to provide the user with one or more of options to search for one or more third devices among the plurality of layer 4 devices, or options to provide information regarding the one or more third devices (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 0051-0055, disclosing searching for other alert information for other layers and sending it to a support team);
Singh does not explicitly teach a probe UI for a user. However, the examiner takes official notice of a UI for use by a user. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Singh with a UI because it lets users like the support team of Singh see what kind of information the system alert contains so the can correct or find a cause of an issue.
As to claims 15-18, they are rejected on grounds corresponding to rejected claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 because they are substantially equivalent.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh and McNaughton in view of Lovy (US 20110264967 A1).
As to claim 4, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach the first database comprises at least one of a remote dictionary server ("Redis") database, a non-relational ("NoSQL") database, or a relational ("SQL") database.
However, Lovy teaches the use of such databases (SQL) (see paragraph (0171)/
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the above references with Lovy because it facilitates data persistence and interprocess communication (see paragraph 0717).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh and McNaugton in view of Scott (US 20180285237 A1).
As to claim 10, the references teach claim 9 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach generating the one or more second software-based network probes comprises at least one of: generating, using the computing system, one or more third software-based network probes, based on corresponding one or more templates each for a particular type and/or model of layer 4 device among the plurality of layer 4 devices.
However, Scott teaches the use of templates to configure particular probe types for network monitoring (see paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the above references with Lovy because it facilitates ensuring the accurate configuration of probes (see abstract).
Conclusion
No prior art was found with which it would be appropriate to reject claim 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON B BRYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7091. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-5 First Friday off.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 5712720631. 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.
/JASON B BRYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights