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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 9/23/2025.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a system (Claim 1), process (Claim 12), and non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Claim 19), thus Claims 1-21 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 12, and 19 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1):
identifying, in response to a determination that at least one SLA of the plurality of SLA records matches the query, actions to be taken, wherein each of the identified actions is defined by the at least one SLA, and each of the identified actions corresponds to a task, a project or a ticket for operation of a telecommunications network;
determining whether a breach of the at least one SLA occurred based on a status of the identified actions to be taken and a timeliness of resolution of the identified actions; and
transmitting a breach notification upon the determination that the breach of the at least one SLA occurred; and
performing at least one of deactivation of the SLA or discontinuation of the SLA.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of concepts performed in the human mind which represents the abstract idea of mental processes. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for determining whether an SLA has been violated by monitoring actions performed and providing a response which could be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions thereon;
a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions;
searching a database containing a plurality of SLA records thereon, wherein searching the database comprises searching the database based on a query;
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [074]-[076]). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the recitation of a “telecommunications network” merely attempts to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The recitation of “for operation of a telecommunications network” merely describes an intended environment where the actions, task, project, and/or ticket may take place. Neither, the telecommunications network, itself, nor its operation are a positively recited step/element of the claims.
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-11, 13-18, 20, and 21 recite further elements related to the analysis, scoring, and message improvement steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas.
Claims 2 and 13 recite “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for automatically creating the query”. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of the processor used to perform the recited activities. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and is simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 14 recite “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for receiving the query from an external device. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor and the external device used to perform the recited activities. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and are simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 15 ,and 20 recite “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing a transmitter to automatically transmit a breach notification to a mobile device controllable by a recipient via wirelessly, and the breach notification is configured to generate an alert on the mobile device”. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor, the mobile device, and the transmitter used to perform the recited activities. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and are simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for: generating a graphical user interface (GUI) in response to the determination that the at least one SLA matches the query; and instructing a display to display the GUI including identifying information for the at least one SLA”. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor and the display used to perform the recited activities. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and are simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims recite further elements related to the use of a graphical user interface to perform the recited steps in the parent claims. The interface used in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality and is only nominally and generically recited as a tool for displaying or viewing data.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for generating the GUI including information related to a type of action item which triggered the match with the query”. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of the processor used to perform the recited activities. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and is simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim recites further elements related to the use of a graphical user interface to perform the recited steps in the parent claims. The interface used in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality and is only nominally and generically recited as a tool for displaying or viewing data.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for updating an SLA execution table in response to the determination that the breach of the least one SLA occurred”. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of the processor used to perform the recited activities. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and is simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the identified actions comprise at least one of resetting of equipment in the telecommunication network, replacing equipment in the telecommunication network, or resolving an alarm generated during operation of the telecommunication network”. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a telecommunication network used to perform the recited activities. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and is simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components and/or to apply the claims to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for searching the database based on a second query in response to a determination that no breach of the at least one SLA has occurred, the second query is usable to retrieve data from the database, and the second query contains different parameters from the query”. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor and the database used to perform the recited activities. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and are simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 17 recite “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing a transmitter to provide a recipient with at least one remedy option along with a breach notification”. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor and the transmitter used to perform the recited activities. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and are simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 18 recite “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing a transmitter to automatically transmit a breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA”. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor and the transmitter used to perform the recited activities. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and are simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the system is further configured to enable performing a modification of the SLA”, which further narrows the abstract idea of the parent claim, but ultimately does not lead toward eligibility.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-11, 13-18, 20, and 21 are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemm et al. (WO 2021113884 A2) in view of Manos (Pub. No. US 2005/0010461 A1) in further view of Son et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0132222 A1).
In regards to Claims 1, 12, and 19, Clemm discloses:
A system/Method for managing a service level agreement (SLA), the system comprises:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions thereon; and a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for: (see at least [0008])
searching a database containing a plurality of SLA records thereon, wherein searching the database comprises searching the database based on a query; ([0058], database includes customer SLAs; [0060], when a flow is initiated, the check is made to the database to identify a customers and associated SLA (looking up a specific customer/SLA in response to an action initiation would constitute a query for that associated data))
identifying, in response to a determination that at least one SLA of the plurality of SLA records matches the query, actions to be taken, wherein each of the identified actions is defined by the at least one SLA, and each of the identified actions corresponds to a task, a project or a ticket for operation of a telecommunication network; ([0058]-[0060], customers and associated SLA are identified in a database of customers/SLAs, as described above; [0034]; [0035], automatically identifies/determines actions to be taken (accounting actions based on SLA) for determining if the SLA is being met, see also [0039]-[0042], the process includes the identification of measurable properties (metrics, KPIs) that are to be measured for accounting data regarding the performance of the system, these activities related to the accounting data collection/measurement represent “tasks” to be performed based on the SLAs (and related SLOs/SLVs), the results of these tasks are used to determine if the SLA is being met; [0003]; [0006], the process is directed to measuring quality of service or client’s network communications across a provider network (telecommunication network) and generates network service accounting data)
determining whether a breach of the at least one SLA occurred based on the identified actions to be taken; ([0034]; [0035], automatically identifies/determines actions to be taken (accounting actions based on SLA) for determining is the SLA is being met (see also [0041]; [0043]; [0036]; [0071]; etc., this accounting for SLA compliance is also discussed throughout the entire reference))
Clemm discloses the above method/system for determining actions to be taken in an SLA and for determining if an SLA has been breached. Clemm does not explicitly disclose that the breach is determined based on a status of the identified actions to be taken and a timeliness of resolution of the identified actions, however, Manos teaches:
determining whether a breach of the at least one SLA occurred based on a status of the identified actions to be taken and a timeliness of resolution of the identified actions; (at least [0039]; [0040], the system monitors tickets (which would include resolutions/actions to be taken, see also Claim 34), the system identifies potential breaches and/or already breached based on status of the resolution (incomplete) and timeliness of resolution (time needed, percent of deadline, past dues, etc.); [0043], discloses service agreements and requirements)
transmitting a breach notification upon the determination that the breach of the at least one SLA occurred; (at least Abstract, [0040], when a ticket is unresolved and past the deadline (SLA violation), and alert (notification) is sent, “If there are unresolved service tickets that have past the deadline for resolution, the monitoring service, for each service ticket that is unresolved and past resolution deadline, periodically alerts the help desk user that a status update is due to a customer…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm so as to have included determining whether a breach of the at least one SLA occurred based on a status of the identified actions to be taken and a timeliness of resolution of the identified actions and transmitting a breach notification upon the determination that the breach of the at least one SLA occurred, as taught by Manos in order to provide adequate warning to service providers that actions need to be take or are overdue in order prevent and/or ensure timely adjudication of SLA breaches (Manos, at least [0039]; [0040]; Claim 13).
Clemm/Manos does not explicitly disclose, but Son teaches:
performing at least one of deactivation of the SLA or discontinuation of the SLA ([0550], when a contract is violated, a service the CSN has the option to cancel the contract (discontinued); [0289]; [0561]; [0572], contracts between the cloud service provider (CSP) and cloud service partner/broker (CSN) include SLAs)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm/Manos so as to have included performing at least one of deactivation of the SLA or discontinuation of the SLA, as taught by Son in order to provide a user the ability to cancel an SLA when the provider is not fulfilling their contractual requirements and service (Son, [0550]; [0551]; [0561]).
In regards to Claims 2 and 13, Clemm discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for automatically creating the query ([0060], “…admission gateway engine 270 checks with a customer/SLA lookup engine 226 which identifies the SLA that governs that particular flow received…”, admission gateway engine and customer/SLA lookup engine automatically creates the database/SLA query)
In regards to Claim 7, Clemm discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for updating an SLA execution table in response to the determination that the breach of the least one SLA occurred ([0045], in response to a determination of a violation/breach, execution instructions can be updated in order to meet SLA requirements (such as prioritizing certain items), although the reference does not explicitly use the term “execution table”, the execution data for the items is included in the SLA/SLO data in the database, Examiner asserts that the execution information in the database would be comparable to a table, this is also similar to applicant’s examples in the specification (see [046], “The SLA execution table is updated in the database which contains the retrieved SLA record associated with the breach. In some embodiments, the update to the SLA execution table includes an increase in an importance or urgency level of the item associated with the breach.”))
In regards to Claim 8, While Clemm/Manos/Son discloses a method for identifying actions to be taken in regards to a service level agreement (SLA), Clemm/Manos/Son does not disclose that those actions include at least one of resetting of equipment in the telecommunication network, replacing equipment in the telecommunication network, or resolving an alarm generated during operation of the telecommunication network.
However, the Examiner asserts that the data identifying the type of action identified is simply a label for the data and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of action) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the potential actions include at least one of resetting of equipment in the telecommunication network, replacing equipment in the telecommunication network, or resolving an alarm generated during operation of the telecommunication network because the specific type of action identified does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the information differently from that in the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemm in view of Manos in further view of Son in further view of Bowman-Amuah (Patent No. US 6,556,659 B1).
In regards to Claims 3 and 14, Clemm/Manos/Son discloses the above system/method for querying databases for SLA data. Clemm/Manos/Son does not explicitly disclose, but Bowman-Amuah teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for receiving the query from an external device (column 17, lines 1-23, users can access databases remotely, for example, subscriber policy and profile data (SLA data) stored on a US database server can be queried from Europe)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm/Manos/Son so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for receiving the query from an external device, as taught by Bowman-Amuah in order to allow customers to retain similar services and experience from multiple locations (Bowman-Amuah, column 17, lines 1-23).
Claim(s) 4, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemm in view of Manos in further view of Son in further of view of Levitt (Pub. No. US 2021/0006478 A1).
In regards to Claims 4, 15, and 20, Clemm/Manos/Son discloses the above system/method for sending alerts to interested parties. Clemm/Manos/Son does not explicitly disclose, but Levitt teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing a transmitter to automatically transmit a breach notification to a mobile device controllable by a recipient via wirelessly, and the breach notification is configured to generate an alert on the mobile device ([0132], when an SLA condition is breached, breach notifications are sent to interested parties (key personnel, recipients); [0172]; devices include mobile devices; [0175]; [0176], devices communicate wirelessly)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm/Manos/Son so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to automatically transmit the notification to a mobile device controllable by the recipient via wirelessly, and the notification is configured to generate an alert on the mobile device, as taught by Levitt in order to allow recipients to be notified in a timely manner and mitigate potential losses (Levitt, [0087]; Clemm, at least [0041]; [0043]).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemm in view of Manos in further view of Son in further of view of Finkelstein et al. (Patent No. US 9,197,514 B2).
In regards to Claims 5 and 16, Clemm/Manos/Son discloses the above system/method for identifying service level agreements for use in monitoring for breaches. Clemm/Manos/Son does not explicitly disclose, but Finkelstein teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for: generating a graphical user interface (GUI) in response to the determination that the at least one SLA matches the query; and instructing a display to display the GUI including identifying information for the at least one SLA (column 5, lines 1-27, a service ticket is created as part of an alarm/alert of an SLA violation/breach, the service ticket is related to a breach of an SLA that is stored it the database, the creation of the ticket to provide SLA and violation data would represent a graphical representation on the user interface for presenting that data (see also column 4, lines 36-61, consumers can use an interface to communicate with the system including profile data and SLA data); column 4, lines 62-67, events are matched to profile and SLA data (querying databases based on service parameters, such as performance))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm/Manos/Son so as to have included wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for: generating a graphical user interface (GUI) in response to the determination that the at least one SLA matches the query; and instructing a display to display the GUI including identifying information for the at least one SLA, as taught by Finkelstein in order to allow recipients to be notified in a timely manner and to be provided useful information for mitigating problems (Finkelstein, column 5, lines 1-27; Clemm, at least [0041]; [0043]).
In regards to Claim 6, Clemm/Manos/Son discloses the above system/method for identifying service level agreements for use in monitoring for breaches. Clemm/Manos/Son does not explicitly disclose, but Finkelstein teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for generating the GUI including information related to a type of action item which triggered the match with the query (column 5, lines 1-27; column 4, lines 36-61; column 4, lines 62-67, as described in parent Claim 5, for example, system performance (“events”) are matched to SLAs in the database and a ticket is created in response to this comparison demonstrating a breach/violation, the ticket including “contributing factors” (performance events which triggered a comparison with the SLA/profile data))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm/Manos/Son so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for generating the GUI including information related to a type of action item which triggered the match with the query, as taught by Finkelstein in order to allow recipients to be notified in a timely manner and to be provided useful information for mitigating problems (Finkelstein, column 5, lines 1-27; Clemm, at least [0041]; [0043]).
In regards to Claim 10, Clemm/Manos/Son discloses the above system/method for sending alerts to interested parties. Clemm/Manos/Son does not explicitly disclose, but Finkelstein teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing a transmitter to provide a recipient with at least one remedy option along with a breach notification (Claim 1; column 5, lines 24-27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm/Manos/Son so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to provide the recipient with at least one remedy option along with the breach notification, as taught by Finkelstein in order to allow recipients to be notified in a timely manner and to be provided useful information for mitigating problems (Finkelstein, Claim 1; column 5, lines 24-27; Clemm, at least [0041]; [0043]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemm in view of Manos in further view of Son in further of view of Feller et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0300142 A1) [hereafter referred to as Feller-2].
In regards to Claim 11, Clemm/Manos/Son discloses the above system/method for sending alerts to interested parties. Clemm/Manos/Son does not explicitly disclose, but Feller-2 teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing a transmitter to automatically transmit a breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA ([0051]; [0082]; [0088], SLA includes definitions regarding timing for evaluations, during the evaluation time, messages are received by the evaluator and then if a breach is determined, an alert is sent (an alert is made after collecting data for a period of time defined by the SLA); [0080], policy actions ins response to a breach includes notifying an administrator )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system Clemm/Manos/Son so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to automatically transmit the breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA, as taught by Feller-2.
Clemm/Manos/Son discloses a “base” method/system in which SLAs are used to determine whether or not breaches in service have occurred and send notifications, as shown above. Feller-2 teaches a comparable method/system in which SLAs are used to determine whether or not breaches in service have occurred and send notifications, as shown above. Feller-2 also teaches an embodiment in which the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to automatically transmit the breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to automatically transmit the breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA to Clemm/Manos/Son could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.")
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemm in view of Manos in further view of Son in further view of Levitt in further of view of Finkelstein.
In regards to Claim 17, Clemm/Manos/Son/Levitt discloses the above system/method for sending alerts to interested parties. Clemm/Manos/Son/Levitt does not explicitly disclose, but Finkelstein teaches:
further comprising providing the recipient with at least one remedy option along with the breach notification (Claim 1; column 5, lines 24-27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm/Manos/Son/Levitt so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to provide the recipient with at least one remedy option along with the breach notification, as taught by Finkelstein in order to allow recipients to be notified in a timely manner and to be provided useful information for mitigating problems (Finkelstein, Claim 1; column 5, lines 24-27; Clemm, at least [0041]; [0043]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemm in view of Manos in further view of Son in further of view of Levitt in further view of Feller-2.
In regards to Claim 18, Clemm/Manos/Son/Levitt discloses the above system/method for sending alerts to interested parties. Clemm/Manos/Son/Levitt does not explicitly disclose, but Feller-2 teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing a transmitter to automatically transmit a breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA ([0051]; [0082]; [0088], SLA includes definitions regarding timing for evaluations, during the evaluation time, messages are received by the evaluator and then if a breach is determined, an alert is sent (an alert is made after collecting data for a period of time defined by the SLA); [0080], policy actions ins response to a breach includes notifying an administrator )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system Clemm/Manos/Son/Levitt so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to automatically transmit the breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA, as taught by Feller-2.
Clemm/Manos/Son/Levitt discloses a “base” method/system in which SLAs are used to determine whether or not breaches in service have occurred and send notifications, as shown above. Feller-2 teaches a comparable method/system in which SLAs are used to determine whether or not breaches in service have occurred and send notifications, as shown above. Feller-2 also teaches an embodiment in which the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to automatically transmit the breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for instructing the transmitter to automatically transmit the breach notification at a timing defined by the at least one SLA to Clemm/Manos/Son/Levitt could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.")
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemm in view of Manos in further view of Son in further of view of Feller et al. (Pub. No, US 2016/0308734 A1) [hereafter referred to as Feller-1].
In regards to Claim 21, Clemm/Manos/Son the above system/method for identifying and responding to SLA violations. Clemm/Manos/Son does not explicitly disclose, but Feller-1 teaches:
wherein the system is further configured to enable performing a modification of the SLA ([0024]; [0031]; [0032]; [0064]; etc., data/metrics indicating the cause of a breach and/or alert are used to determine whether a threshold for a breach condition should be updated/modified, thresholds can be updated/modified based on those determination to ensure that breach triggering parameters are within acceptable ranges)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Clemm/Manos/Son so as to have included wherein the system is further configured to enable performing a modification of the SLA, as taught by Feller-1 in order to ensure that breach triggering parameters are within acceptable ranges to limit unnecessary and inappropriate breach triggers (Feller, [0024];[ 0031]; Clemm, [0003]).
Additional Prior Art Identified but not Relied Upon
Allen et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0325071 A1). Discloses modifying SLA based on collected breach data (see at least Abstract; [0013]).
Biran et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0106683A1). Discloses the monitoring and analysis of a communications network to determine breaches of SLAs based on events in the network (see at least Abstract; [0018]; [0019]; [0056]-[0066]; [0069]-[0073]; [0078]; [0083]; [0086]).
Chou et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0254355 A1). Discloses automatically transmit a breach notification to a recipient in response to the determination that the breach of the least one SLA occurred wherein the recipient is defined by the at least one SLA (see at least [0018]; [0034]; Claim 1).
Gonda et al. (Patent No. US 6,662,221 B1). Discloses the monitoring of SLA parameters to determine violations and provide trouble tickets (see at least column 7, lines 37-49; column 8, lines 26-47; column 10, lines 53-67; column 11, lines 1-34).
Kapoor et al. (Patent No. US 10,430,799 B1). Discloses measuring of time thresholds in regards to breaches of SLAs and the effects of meeting or missing those thresholds (at least column 1, paragraph 4; Claim 15).
Krishna et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0261711 A1). Discloses the sending of alerts to interested parties of a contract/SLA to prevent violations (see at least [0034]) and timeframes for acceptable responses to service requests (at least [0054]; [0057]; Tables on Pages 6 and 7).
Rokicki et al. (Patent No. US 9,749,193 B1). Discloses applying rules to SLA/SLOs and identifying actions to determine if SLA/SLO objectives have been satisfied (at least column 6, paragraph 5; Claim 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Applicant asserts that the recited claim language is not a generic implementation, but rather a specific technological improvement in how SLAs are managed within a telecommunications network and that a technical problem in the art is being addressed. However, Applicant’s remarks, including citations to the specification, merely assert that there is a deficiency or need in the art and that the claimed invention provides a solution. However, these remarks and citations do not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the alleged technical problem and/or how the claimed invention provides the alleged improvement in a manner that is significantly more than the abstract ideas.
In regards to Enfish and MCRO, Applicant asserts that they are similar to Applicant’s claimed in invention, but fails to provide any analysis or explanation to explain how/why the findings of these decisions would be relevant to the features of the claims. For example, the mere fact that the claimed invention includes specific rules does not automatically render it patentable under the same analysis applied to MCRO. Applicant does not provide evidence to demonstrate that the computer is not simply used as a tool.
Applicant does not make clear how/why “automation of SLA breach detection and enforcement” or “real-time monitoring of SLA-related operational units” is provided in a meaningful manner that would improve over the prior art or improve the technology. Additionally, Applicant does not clearly demonstrate the claimed invention provides “efficient handling” in a meaningful manner. It is not clear how the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant’s remarks are drawn to the newly added claim material and are therefore moot in view of the newly provided prior art rejections, citations, and/or explanations.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the deepening claims are based on the remarks for the parent claims and provide no additional arguments. For those that assert the “Office failed to apply [reference] in a manner sufficient to cure the above noted deficiencies of Clemm”, Applicant provides no identification or explanation of the alleged insufficient application.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 September 29, 2025
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629