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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments filed on August 19, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-19 and 21-23 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, 17 and 19 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
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 1-2, 4-13, 15-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 21 are methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 13 and 15-18 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 19 and 21-23 are non-transitory machine-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitation “determining a rule template that relates to a network function that performs at least one network operation within a communication network”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a network function and mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, a rule template that relates to the network function that performs at least one network operation within a communication network. The limitation of “generating at least one rule relating to the network function based on analysis of the rule template and the data that is obtained from the data file associated with a user identity, wherein the generating the at least one rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on a tag indicator indicative of the tag” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template and data and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, at least one rule relating to a network function based on analysis of the rule template and the data that is obtained from a data file associated with a user identity, wherein the generating the at least one rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on a tag indicator indicative of the tag. The limitation of “replacing the tag in the rule template with an item of the items of the data that relates to the variable” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate the rule template and mentally replace, with or without the use of pen and paper, a tag in the rule template with an item of the items of the data that relates to the variable.
Claim 13: The limitation “generating a rule template that is associated with a network function that performs at least one network operation within a communication network and corresponds to a rule format associated with a fault monitoring application program for monitoring the at least one network operation of the network function to detect a condition is satisfied during an event”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a network function and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a rule template that is associated with the network function that performs at least one network operation within a communication network and corresponds to a rule format associated with a fault monitoring application program for monitoring the at least one network operation of the network function to detect a condition is satisfied during an event. The limitation of “generating at least one rule associated with the network function based on analysis of the rule template and the data received from the data file associated with a user identity, wherein the generating the at least one rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on a tag marker indicative of the tag” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template and data and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, at least one rule associated with the network function based on analysis of the rule template and the data received from a data file associated with a user identity, wherein the generating the at least one rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on a tag marker indicative of the tag.
The limitation of “substituting an item of the items of the data relating to the parameter for the tag in the rule template” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template and mentally substitute, with or without the use of pen and paper, an item of the items of the data relating to the parameter for the tag in the rule template.
Claim 19: The limitation “creating a rule template that is associated with a network function that performs at least one network operation within a communication network and in accordance with a rule format associated with a fault monitoring application program for monitoring the at least one operation of the network function to detect a condition is satisfied during an event”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a network function and mentally create, with or without the use of pen and paper, a rule template that is associated with the network function that performs at least one network operation within a communication network and in accordance with a rule format associated with a fault monitoring application program for monitoring the at least one operation of the network function to detect a condition is satisfied during an event. The limitation of “creating at least one rule associated with the network function based on analysis of the rule template and the data that is comprised in the data file, wherein the creating of the at least one rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on a tag indicator indicative of the tag” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template and data and mentally create, with or without the use of pen and paper, at least one rule associated with the network function based on analysis of the rule template and the data that is comprised in the data file, wherein the creating of the at least one rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on a tag indicator indicative of the tag.
The limitation of “replacing the tag in the rule template with an item of the items of the data that relates to the variable” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate the rule template and mentally replace, with or without the use of pen and paper, a tag in the rule template with an item of the items of the data that relates to the variable.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 13 and 19 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element – “a system comprising a processor” and “installing, by the system, the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 1 recites additional elements of “receiving, by the system, a data file comprising data” and “deploying, by the system, the fault monitoring application program within the communication network for monitoring the at least one network operation of the network function” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 1 recites the following additional element – “wherein the data comprises items of the data that are arranged in a structured format or an unstructured format in the data file”, “wherein the rule template corresponds to a rule format associated with a fault monitoring application program for monitoring the at least one network operation of the network function to detect a condition is satisfied during an event”, “wherein the rule template comprises a tag and a group of rule elements associated with the network function”, “wherein the tag relates to a variable associated with the network function” and “wherein the tag and the group of rule elements were arranged within respective fields in relation to each other in the rule template as defined by the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element – “a processor”, “a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations…” and “installing the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 13 recites additional elements of “receiving a data file comprising data” and “deploying the fault monitoring application program within the communication network for monitoring the at least one network operation of the network function” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 13 recites the following additional element – “wherein the data comprises items of the data that are arranged in a structured format or an unstructured format in the data file”, “wherein the rule template comprises a tag and rule-related information”, “wherein the tag relates to a parameter associated with the network function” and “wherein the generating arranges the tag and rule-related information within respective fields in relation to each other in the rule template defined by the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element – “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations…” and “installing the at least one rule associated with the network function, in the fault monitoring application program” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 19 recites additional elements of “receiving a data file comprising data” and “deploying the fault monitoring application program within the communication network for monitoring the at least one network operation of the network function” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 19 recites the following additional element – “wherein the data comprises items of the data that are arranged in a structured format or an unstructured format in the data file”, “wherein the rule template comprises a tag and a group of rule elements associated with the network function”, “wherein the tag relates to a variable associated with the network function” and “wherein the creating arranges the tag and the group of rule elements within respective fields in relation to each other in the rule template as defined by the rule format associated with the monitoring application” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 13 and 19 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 13 and 19: The claims do not include additional elements, alone 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere instructions to apply an exception and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant data gathering activity as also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 13 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 2 and 15, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “generating a second rule relating to the network function based on the analysis of the rule template and the data, wherein the generating the second rule comprises, identifying the tag in the rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a network function, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second rule relating to the network function based on the analysis of the rule template and the data, wherein the generating the second rule comprises, identifying the tag in the rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag. Further still, claims 2 and 15 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “replacing the tag in the rule template with a second item of the data that relates to the variable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate the rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally replace/substitute, with or without the use of pen and paper, the tag in the rule template with a second item of the data that relates to the variable. Further still, claims 2 and 15 recite additional element of “wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data, wherein the at least one rule is a first rule” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claims 2 and 15 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2 and 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claims 4 and 16, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the generating the at least one rule comprises identifying the second tag in the rule template based on a second tag indicator indicative of the second tag” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, at least one rule by identifying a second tag in the rule template based on a second tag indicator indicative of the second tag. Further still, claims 4 and 16 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “replacing the second tag in the rule template with a second item of the data that relates to the second variable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate the rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally replace, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second tag in the rule template with a second item of the data that relates to a second variable. Further still, claims 4 and 16 recite additional element of “wherein the tag is a first tag” , “wherein the variable is a first variable”, “wherein the tag indicator is a first tag indicator”, “wherein the rule template comprises the first tag, a second tag, and the group of rule elements associated with the network function”, “wherein the second tag relates to a second variable associated with the network function” and “wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claim 4 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 16 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claims 5 and 17, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “determining a second rule template that relates to a second network function and corresponds to the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program, wherein the second rule template comprises a second tag and a second group of rule elements associated with the second network function, and wherein the second tag relates to a second variable associated with the second network function”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a second network function, just as in the independent claims above, mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second rule template that relates to the second network function and corresponds to the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program. Further still, claims 5 and 17 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “generating a second rule relating to the second network function based on analysis of the second rule template and second data that is obtained from a second data file associated with the first user identity or a second user identity, wherein the generating the second rule comprises identifying the second tag in the second rule template based on a second tag indicator indicative of the second tag”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a second rule template and second data, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second rule relating to the second network function based on analysis of the second rule template and the second data that is obtained from a second data file associated with the first user identity or a second user identity, wherein the generating the second rule comprises identifying the second tag in the second rule template based on a second tag indicator indicative of the second tag.
Further still, claims 5 and 17 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “replacing the second tag in the second rule template with a second item of the second data that relates to the second variable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate the rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally replace, with or without the use of pen and paper, the second tag in the second rule template with a second item of the second data that relates to the second variable. Further still, claims 5 and 17 recite additional element of “wherein the rule template that relates to the network function is a first rule template that relates to a first network function”, “wherein the group of rule elements is a first group of rule elements”, “wherein the at least one rule is a first rule”, “wherein the data obtained from the data file associated with the user identity is first data obtained from a first data file associated with a first user identity”, “wherein the tag is a first tag”, “wherein the variable is a first variable”, “wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data”, “wherein the second rule template comprises a second tag and a second group of rule elements associated with the second network function” and “wherein the second tag relates to a second variable associated with the second network function” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claims 5 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 6, it recites additional element of “receiving, by the system, rule-related information that comprises the group of rule elements” which is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 6 recites additional element of
“wherein the group of rule elements comprises a network function name of the network function, a query element relating to a query to be performed using the at least one rule, a name element relating to a component name of a component associated with the network function, a condition element relating to a condition associated with the component or the network function, a time element indicative of a time associated with the condition, or a payload element relating to payload information that is to be communicated to a node in response to the condition being determined to be satisfied” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claim 6 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claims 7 and 18, they recite additional element of “wherein the tag is a first tag”, “wherein the variable is a first variable”, “wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data” and “wherein the items of the data comprise the first item of the data associated with the first variable and the first tag, a second item of the data associated with the first variable and the first tag, or a third item of the data associated with a second variable associated with the network function and a second tag associated with the second variable” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claims 7 and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 18 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 8, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “mapping the first item of the data, the second item of the data, or a first portion of the data file to the first variable or the first tag” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a portion of data, just as in the independent claims above, mentally map, with or without the use of pen and paper, the first item of the data, the second item of the data, or a first portion of the data file to the first variable or the first tag. Further, claim 8 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “mapping, by the system, the third item of the data or a second portion of the data file to the second variable or the second tag”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate data, just as in the independent claims above, mentally map, with or without the use of pen and paper, the third item of the data or a second portion of the data file to the second variable or the second tag. Further, claim 8 recites additional element of “wherein the first portion of the data file comprises the first item of the data or the second item of the data” and “wherein the second portion of the data file comprises the third item of the data” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 9, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “analyzing the rule template and the updated data of the updated data file” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template and updated data, just as in the independent claims above, mentally analyze, with or without the use of pen and paper, the rule template and the updated data of the updated data file. Further, claim 9 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “based on the analyzing of the rule template and the updated data, generating an updated rule relating to the network function, wherein the updated rule is different from the rule, and wherein the generating the updated rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template and updated data, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, an updated rule relating to the network function, wherein the updated rule is different from the rule, and wherein the generating the updated rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag based on the analyzing of the rule template and the updated data. Further still, claim 9 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “replacing the tag in the rule template with an updated item of the updated data that relates to the variable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally replace, with or without the use of pen and paper, the tag in the rule template with an updated item of the updated data that relates to the variable.
Further still, claim 9 recites additional element of “receiving, by the system, an updated data file associated with the network function and the user identity” which is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 9 recites additional element of “wherein the updated data file comprises updated data that is different from the data” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claim 9 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 10, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “determining an updated rule template that relates to the network function and corresponds to the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a network function, just as in the independent claims above, mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, an updated rule template that relates to the network function and corresponds to the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program. Further, claim 10 recites additional element of “receiving, by the system, an updated group of rule elements associated with the network function” which is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 10 recites additional element of “wherein the updated group of rule elements is different from the group of rule elements”, “wherein the updated rule template is different from the rule template”, “wherein the updated rule template comprises an updated group of elements, the tag, or an updated tag associated with the network function” and “wherein the tag relates to the variable, or the updated tag relates to the variable or an updated variable associated with the network function” which are which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 11, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “generating a first updated rule that relates to the network function based on analysis of the updated rule template and the data of the data file, wherein the generating the first updated rule comprises identifying the tag in the updated rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an updated rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a first updated rule that relates to the network function based on analysis of the updated rule template and the data of the data file, wherein the generating the first updated rule comprises identifying the tag in the updated rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag. Further, claim 11 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “replacing the tag in the updated rule template with the item of the data that relates to the variable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate the updated rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally replace, with or without the use of pen and paper, the tag in the updated rule template with the item of the data that relates to the variable.
Further, claim 11 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “generating a second updated rule that relates to the network function based on analysis of the updated rule template and the data of the data file, wherein the generating the second updated rule comprises identifying the updated tag in the updated rule template based on an updated tag indicator indicative of the updated tag” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an updated rule template and data, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second updated rule that relates to the network function based on analysis of the updated rule template and the data of the data file, wherein the generating the second updated rule comprises identifying the updated tag in the updated rule template based on an updated tag indicator indicative of the updated tag. Further, claim 11 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “replacing the updated tag in the updated rule template with the item of the data that relates to the variable or the updated variable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate the updated rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally replace, with or without the use of pen and paper, an updated tag in the updated rule template with the item of the data that relates to the variable or the updated variable.
Further, claim 11 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “generating a third updated rule that relates to the network function based on analysis of the updated rule template and the updated data of the updated data file, wherein the generating the third updated rule comprises identifying the tag or the updated tag in the updated rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag or the updated tag indicator indicative of the updated tag” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an updated rule template and updated data, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a third updated rule that relates to the network function based on analysis of the updated rule template and the updated data of the updated data file, wherein the generating the third updated rule comprises identifying the tag or the updated tag in the updated rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag or the updated tag indicator indicative of the updated tag. Further, claim 11 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “replacing the tag or the updated tag in the updated rule template with an updated item of the updated data that relates to the variable or the updated variable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an updated rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally replace, with or without the use of pen and paper, the tag or the updated tag in the updated rule template with an updated item of the updated data that relates to the variable or the updated variable.
Further, claim 11 recites additional element of “receiving, by the system, an updated data file associated with the network function” which is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 11 recites additional element of “wherein the updated data file comprises updated data that is different from the data” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 11 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 1 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 12, it recite additional element of “wherein the tag is in a defined tag format that facilitates identification of the tag in the rule template and distinguishing the tag from the group of rule elements in the rule template” and “wherein the tag comprises the tag indicator that is indicative of the tag and a tag name that indicates the variable to which the tag pertains” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 21, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “generating a respective rule for each desired event of a group of events for the network function”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a group of events, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a respective rule for each desired event of a group of events for the network function. Further, claim 21 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 21 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 21 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 22, it recite additional abstract idea recitations of “creating a second rule associ