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 associated with the network function based on the analysis of the rule template and the data, wherein the creating 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 rule template and data, just as in the independent claims above, mentally create, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second rule associated with the network function based on the analysis of the rule template and the data, wherein the creating the second rule comprises, identifying the tag in the rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag. Further, claim 22 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “substituting a second item of the data to the variable 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 about and observe, judge and evaluate a rule template, just as in the independent claims above, mentally substitute, with or without the use of pen and paper, a second item of the data to the variable for the tag in the rule template.
Further still, claim 22 recites additional element of “wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data” and “wherein the at least one rule is a first rule” 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 22 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 22 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 22 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With regard to claim 23, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the creating the at least one rule comprises identifying the second tag in the rule template based on a second tag marker 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 tag, just as in the independent claims above, mentally create, with or without the use of pen and paper, the at least one rule by identifying the second tag in the rule template based on a second tag marker indicative of the second tag. Further, claims 23 recites additional abstract idea recitations of “replacing a second item of the data relating to the second variable for the second 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 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, a second item of the data relating to the second variable for the second tag in the rule template.
Further still, claim 23 recites additional element of “wherein the tag is a first tag”, “wherein the variable is a first variable”, “wherein the tag marker is a first tag marker”, “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 23 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 23 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 23 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-19 and 21-23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-13, 15-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koster (US 2008/0196002) in view of Brown et al. (“2016/0070251”, Sep 2016) and in further view of Paulus et al. (US 10,997,243).
With respect to Claim 1, Koster discloses:
determining, by a system comprising a processor, a rule template that relates to a network function that performs at least one network operation within a communication network, (a user selects (determines) a rule template, Paragraph 72; rule templates to generate rules to monitor network events (network function) such as a network performance measures, specific network feature (network operation) and/or network operator organizations which run an IP or communication network (network operation), Paragraphs 57 and 113) wherein the rule template corresponds to a rule format associated with a fault monitoring application program (each pre-defined template represents a basic rule pattern including a number of variables and options (rule format) used by a monitoring tool (monitoring application), Paragraphs 53 and 57; monitoring tool can detect error conditions (e.g. an alarm XYZ has been received, a network performance measurement has exceeded a threshold, etc.) (fault monitoring application program), Paragraphs 8 and 57) for monitoring the at least one network operation of the network function to detect a condition is satisfied during an event; (monitoring network events to detect error conditions such as if an alarm has been received or a network performance measurement has exceeded a threshold (condition is satisfied during an event), Paragraphs 8 and 57) wherein the rule template comprises a tag and a group of rule elements associated with the network function, (template provides a basic rule pattern including a number of variables and options (tag and a group of rule elements) to modify the logic used by a monitoring tool (application), Paragraph 57; rule templates comprises placeholder variable names and template options (tag and group of rule elements) associated with a specific event (network function), Paragraph 57) wherein the tag relates to a variable associated with the network function, (the placeholder variable names (tag) may be replaced by actual variables (relates to) to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57) 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; (rule templates are pre-defined representing a basic rule pattern (tag and group of rule elements arranged within respective fields in relation to each other), Paragraph 53; rule templates can be adjusted by the configuration of parameters and/or choosing certain options (arranging tag and the group of rule elements within respective fields in relation to each other), Paragraphs 72-73; activating a template option may in turn require filling additional template variables (arrange tag and the group of rule elements within respective fields in relation to each other), Paragraph 73; each pre-defined template represents (based on) a basic rule pattern used by a monitoring tool (rule format associated with the application), Paragraphs 53 and 57)
receiving, by the system, data, wherein the data comprises items of the data, (constructing a rule using user specified information for template variables and options (receiving data/items of the data), Paragraph 57)
and generating, by the system, at least one rule relating to the network function based on an analysis of the rule template and the data that is obtained, (constructing a rule (generating a rule) using user specified information for template variables and options (data), Paragraph 57; the rule is in principle generated by as on the arrangement of rule templates, Paragraph 81) 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, and replacing the tag in the rule template with an item of the items of the data that relates to the variable; (placeholder variable names (tag) may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
and installing, by the system, the at least one rule, in the fault monitoring application program. (the generated rule may be deployed to a Rule Engine/monitoring tool (fault monitoring tool), Paragraph 93)
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. (see Figure 1; generated rule is installed/deployed to the rule engine which is then used (deployed) by the monitoring UI/monitoring tool (network monitoring), Paragraphs 81 and 93)
Koster does not disclose:
a data file comprising data, wherein the data comprises items of the data that are arranged in a structured format or an unstructured format in the data file;
the data file associated with a user identity
However, Brown et al. discloses:
a data file comprising data, wherein the data comprises items of the data (database may contain at least one automation rule (data file), Paragraph 33; automation rules can contain parameters such as habit, location, season etc., Paragraphs 37-38)
the data file associated with a user identity (the generation module may update, modify, improve and/or delete automation rules based on one or more parameters such as a user request, a change in users, a change in habit, a change in location, a change in seasons or the like (data file associated with the user identity), Paragraphs 37-38; adjusting/modifying automation rules/templates based on the habits or mannerisms of a user (data file associated with a user identify), Paragraph 38)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Brown et al. into the teaching of Koster to include a data file comprising data, wherein the data comprises items of the data and the data file associated with a user identity in order to generate and adapt a rule/rule template for specific users and/or automation systems. (Brown et al., Paragraph 37, lines 9-11)
Koster and Brown et al. do not disclose:
the data comprises items of the data that are arranged in a structured format or an unstructured format in the data file;
However, Paulus et al. disclose:
the data comprises items of the data that are arranged in a structured format or an unstructured format in the data file; (metadata properties (items of the data) are recorded in a semi-structured format, Column 19, lines 44-47)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paulus et al. into the teaching of Koster and Brown et al. to include the data comprises items of the data that are arranged in a structured format or an unstructured format in the data file in order to take advantage of the benefits of structured formats such as ease of manipulation and querying of the data or the benefits of unstructured formats such as being able to collect and store data faster and ease of storing due to being in native format.
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster further discloses:
wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data, (for example, in a template with the pattern "If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC", the variables are ABC and XYZ (first item of the data) and the optional part (that can be switched on or off with a template option) is "and launch a repair script ABC", Paragraph 57; placeholder variable names (first item of data) may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57) wherein the at least one rule is a first rule, (constructing a rule (first rule) using user specified information for template variables and options (data), Paragraph 57) and wherein the method further comprises:
generating, by the system, a second rule relating to the network function based on the analysis of the rule template and the data, (constructing a rule (generating a second rule) using user specified information for template variables and options, Paragraph 57) wherein the generating the second rule comprises, identifying the tag in the rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag, and replacing the tag in the rule template with a second item of the data that relates to the variable. (see Figure 3; shows a plurality of example rule templates that can be used to generate various rules (first and/or second rules); placeholder variable names (second item of data) in rule templates may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster further discloses:
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, wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data, (for example, in a template with the pattern "If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC", the variables are ABC and XYZ (first and second tag/tag indicator) and the optional part (that can be switched on or off with a template option) is "and launch a repair script ABC" (group of rule elements associated with the network function), Paragraph 57; placeholder variable names in rule templates may be replaced by actual variables (first/second variables) to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
and 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, and replacing the second tag in the rule template with a second item of the data that relates to the second variable. (placeholder variable names (second item of data) in rule templates may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster and Paulus et al. further discloses:
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, (Koster, template provides a basic rule pattern (first rule template) including a number of variables and options (a group of rule elements) to modify the logic used by a monitoring tool (first network function), Paragraph 57) wherein the at least one rule is a first rule, wherein the data obtained from the data is first data obtained from a first data, (Koster, constructing a rule (first rule) using user specified information for template variables and options (first data), Paragraph 57) 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, (Koster, for example, in a template with the pattern "If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC", the variables are ABC and XYZ (first variable/first tag/first item of the data) and the optional part (that can be switched on or off with a template option) is "and launch a repair script ABC", Paragraph 57; placeholder variable names (first item of data) may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
and wherein the method further comprises:
determining, by the system, a second rule template that relates to a second network function (Koster, a user selects (determines) a rule template, Paragraph 72; rule templates to generate rules to monitor network events, Paragraphs 11-13 ) 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; (Koster, template provides a basic rule pattern (rule format) including a number of variables and options (tag and a group of rule elements) to modify the logic used by a monitoring tool (fault monitoring application program), Paragraph 57)
and generating, by the system, a second rule relating to the second network function based on an analysis of the second rule template and second data that is obtained from a second data, (Koster, constructing a rule (determining a second rule) using user specified information for template variables and options (second data), Paragraph 57) 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, and replacing the second tag in the second rule template with a second item of the second data that relates to the second variable. (Koster, placeholder variable names (second tag) may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
Koster and Paulus et al. do not disclose:
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
second data is obtained from a second data file associated with the user identity or a second user identity
However, Brown et al. discloses:
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 (the generation module may update, modify, improve and/or delete automation rules based on one or more parameters such as a user request, a change in users, a change in habit, a change in location, a change in seasons or the like (data file associated with the user identity), Paragraphs 37-38; adjusting/modifying automation rules/templates based on the habits or mannerisms of a user (first data file associated with a first user identify), Paragraph 38)
second data is obtained from a second data file associated with the user identity or a second user identity (the generation module may update, modify, improve and/or delete automation rules based on one or more parameters such as a user request, a change in users, a change in habit, a change in location, a change in seasons or the like (data file associated with the user identity), Paragraphs 37-38; adjusting/modifying automation rules/templates based on the habits or mannerisms of a user (second data file associated with a second user identify), Paragraph 38)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Brown et al. into the teaching of Koster and Paulus et al. to include 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 and second data is obtained from a second data file associated with the user identity or a second user identity in order to generate and adapt a rule/rule template for specific users and/or automation systems. (Brown et al., Paragraph 37, lines 9-11)
With respect to Claim 6, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster further disclose:
further comprising:
receiving, by the system, rule-related information that comprises the group of rule elements, 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. (template provides a basic rule pattern including a number of variables and options (a group of rule elements) to modify, Paragraph 57; template options allow switching optional template extensions on or off such as “launch a repair script ABC” can be activated or deactivated, Paragraph 57)
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster further disclose:
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, (for example, in a template with the pattern "If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC", the variables are ABC and XYZ (first variable/first tag/first item of the data) and the optional part (that can be switched on or off with a template option) is "and launch a repair script ABC", Paragraph 57)
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. (for example, in a template with the pattern "If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC", the variables are ABC and XYZ (items of the data) and the optional part (that can be switched on or off with a template option) is "and launch a repair script ABC", Paragraph 57)
With respect to Claim 8, all the limitations of Claim 7 have been addressed above; and Koster further disclose:
further comprising:
mapping, by the system, 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, wherein the first portion of the data file comprises the first item of the data or the second item of the data; (Template variables hold, for example, network operator specific knowledge (e.g. names of alarms or network performance measurements, comparison operations, thresholds, repair script names, etc.) and need to be filled by the administrator before constructing a rule from a template (mapping). That is, placeholder variable names (tag(s)) may be replaced by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
and 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, wherein the second portion of the data file comprises the third item of the data. (Template variables hold, for example, network operator specific knowledge (e.g. names of alarms or network performance measurements, comparison operations, thresholds, repair script names, etc.) and need to be filled by the administrator before constructing a rule from a template (mapping). That is, placeholder variable names (tag(s)) may be replaced by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
With respect to Claim 12, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster further disclose:
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. (Template variables hold, for example, network operator specific knowledge (e.g. names of alarms or network performance measurements, comparison operations, thresholds, repair script names, etc.) and need to be filled by the administrator before constructing a rule from a template. That is, placeholder variable names (tag/tag indicator/tag name) may be replaced by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process which are different than template options (group of rule elements), Paragraph 57)
Claims 13 and 15-18 are system claims corresponding to the method claims above (Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 21, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster further discloses:
wherein the generating the at least one rule, comprises:
generating, by the system, a respective rule for each desired event of a group of events for the network function. (see Figure 4, sample rule; generating specific monitoring rules (desired event(s)) using one or more templates such as for example “If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC”, Paragraph 57)
With respect to Claim 22, all the limitations of Claim 19 have been addressed above; and Koster further discloses:
wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data, (for example, in a template with the pattern "If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC", the variables are ABC and XYZ (first item of the data) and the optional part (that can be switched on or off with a template option) is "and launch a repair script ABC", Paragraph 57; placeholder variable names (first item of data) may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57) wherein the at least one rule is a first rule (constructing a rule (first rule) using user specified information for template variables and options (data), Paragraph 57) and wherein the operations further comprise:
creating a second rule associated with the network function based on the analysis of the rule template and the data, (constructing a rule (creating a second rule) using user specified information for template variables and options, Paragraph 57) wherein the creating the second rule comprises, identifying the tag in the rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag, and substituting a second item of the data relating to the variable for the tag in the rule template. (see Figure 3; shows a plurality of example rule templates that can be used to generate various rules (first and/or second rules); placeholder variable names (second item of data) in rule templates may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process (substituting), Paragraph 57)
With respect to Claim 23, all the limitations of Claim 19 have been addressed above; and Koster further discloses:
wherein the tag is a first tag, wherein the variable is a first variable, wherein the tag marker is a first tag marker, 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, wherein the item of the data is a first item of the data, (for example, in a template with the pattern "If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC", the variables are ABC and XYZ (first and second tag/tag marker) and the optional part (that can be switched on or off with a template option) is "and launch a repair script ABC" (group of rule elements associated with the network function), Paragraph 57; placeholder variable names in rule templates may be replaced by actual variables (first/second variables) to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
and wherein the creating the at least one rule comprises identifying the second tag in the rule template based on a second tag marker indicative of the second tag, and replacing a second item of the data relating to the second variable for the second tag in the rule template. (placeholder variable names (second item of data/second tag marker) in rule templates may be replaced (identifying) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process (creating the rule), Paragraph 57)
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koster (US 2008/0196002) in view of Brown et al. (US 2016/0070251) in view of Paulus et al. (US 10,997,243) and in further view of Hettenkofer et al. (US 2014/0180970).
With respect to Claim 9, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster, Brown et al. and Paulus et al. do not disclose:
further comprising:
receiving, by the system, an updated data file associated with the network function and the user identity, wherein the updated data file comprises updated data that is different from the data;
analyzing, by the system, the rule template and the updated data of the updated data file; and
based on the analyzing of the rule template and the updated data, generating, by the system, 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, and replacing the tag in the rule template with an updated item of the updated data that relates to the variable.
However, Hettenkofer et al. disclose:
further comprising:
receiving, by the system, an updated data file associated with the network function and the user identity, wherein the updated data file comprises updated data that is different from the data; (the rule creation engine (system) receives from a user (user identity) updated data for a rule template (updated data file), Paragraph 85)
analyzing, by the system, the rule template and the updated data of the updated data file; (rule creation engine interprets (analyzes) the rule data received from the user and an existing rule template, Paragraphs 82-83)
and based on the analyzing of the rule template and the updated data, generating, by the system, an updated rule relating to the network function, wherein the updated rule is different from the rule, (determine aspects of the rule that have been updated, Paragraph 83) and wherein the generating the updated rule comprises identifying the tag in the rule template based on the tag indicator indicative of the tag, and replacing the tag in the rule template with an updated item of the updated data that relates to the variable. (for an existing rule template that has been updated by a user, the rule creation engine may update a corresponding data structure in the memory and/or data store with the aspects of the rule that have been updated (replacing), Paragraph 83)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hettenkofer et al. into the teaching of Koster, Brown et al. and Paulus et al. to include receiving, by the system, an updated data file associated with the network function and the user identity, wherein the updated data file comprises updated data that is different from the data, analyzing, by the system, the rule template and the updated data of the updated data file and based on the analyzing of the rule template and the updated data, generating, by the system, 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, and replacing the tag in the rule template with an updated item of the updated data that relates to the variable in order to allow a user to update rule templates.
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Koster, Brown et al. and Paulus et al. further disclose:
group of rule elements associated with the network function (Koster, for example, in a template with the pattern "If alarm XYZ is received then indicate this in monitoring tool and launch a repair script ABC", the variables are ABC and XYZ and the optional part (that can be switched on or off with a template option) is "and launch a repair script ABC" (group of rule elements associated with the network function), Paragraph 57)
Koster, Brown et al. and Paulus et al. do not disclose:
further comprising:
receiving, by the system, an updated group of rule elements associated with the network function, wherein the updated group of rule elements is different from the group of rule elements; and
determining, by the system, an updated rule template that relates to the network function and corresponds to the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program, 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.
However, Hettenkofer et al. disclose:
further comprising:
receiving, by the system, an updated group of rule elements associated with the function, wherein the updated group of rule elements is different from the group of rule elements; (a user provides updated rule template data (updated group of rule elements) to the system, Paragraph 85; updated rule template data implies that it is different from the existing/original rule template data)
and determining, by the system, an updated rule template that relates to the function and corresponds to the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program, (determining an existing rule template, Paragraph 85) wherein the updated rule template is different from the rule template, (updated rule template implies that it is different from the existing/original 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 function. (once the user has entered data defining the rule template (updated group of elements), the rule creation engine receives the data and updates the rule template, Paragraph 85)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hettenkofer et al. into the teaching of Koster, Brown et al. and Paulus et al. to include receiving, by the system, an updated group of rule elements associated with the network function, wherein the updated group of rule elements is different from the group of rule elements; and determining, by the system, an updated rule template that relates to the network function and corresponds to the rule format associated with the application, 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 in order to allow a user to update rule templates.
With respect to Claim 11, all the limitations of Claim 10 have been addressed above; and Koster, Brown et al., Paulus et al. and Hettenkofer et al. further disclose:
further comprising:
one of:
generating, by the system, 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, (Koster, constructing a rule (determining a first rule) using user specified information for template variables and options (data), Paragraph 57; through the combination of Koster, Brown et al. Paulus et al., and Hettenkofer et al discloses a first updated rule that relates to the network function) 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, and replacing the tag in the updated rule template with the item of the data that relates to the variable; (Koster, placeholder variable names (second tag) may be replaced (identified) by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process, Paragraph 57)
generating, by the system, 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, and replacing the updated tag in the updated rule template with the item of the data that relates to the variable or the updated variable;
or receiving, by the system, an updated data file associated with the network function, wherein the updated data file comprises updated data that is different from the data, and generating, by the system, 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, and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
First, Court made it extremely clear above that an invention must be evaluated as a whole and not evaluated based on each claim element in as to claim 1, the Examiner is completely silent as to the step of: “installing, by the system, the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program.” It is respectfully requested that the Examiner provide the necessary teachings as to “how does a human mind install a rule into a piece of software.” To ensure that Applicant's claims are not interpreted unreasonably broad, the independent claims have been again clarified to state that the fault monitoring application is an fault monitoring application program. In addition, the independent claims have been amended to recite: “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.”
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection to claim 1 above, the Examiner has analyzed each and every limitation individually and as a whole under Step 2A, Prong 1 and 2 and Step 2B. Applicant argues that the Examiner is “completely silent as to as to the step of: ‘installing, by the system, the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program.’” However, as can be seen in the §101 rejection above, the Examiner has analyzed this limitation under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as being an additional element that is merely a recitation 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 under Step 2A, Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
As for the Applicant’s newly amended limitation of “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”, the Examiner has analyzed this limitation under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as being an additional element. However, this additional element is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. 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.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Second, the Court concluded that inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act. It is respectfully submitted that the present independent claims recite a method for automated rule generation for network functions, i.e., improving the functions of a software application implemented on a computing device, thus clearly demonstrating a practical application. Furthermore, the claims now further recite “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.” In other words, the communication network is also improved as well.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection above, the Examiner has analyzed each and every limitation under Step 2A, Prong 1 and 2 and Step 2B alone and in combination and has concluded that claim 1 does not contain any limitation that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite an improvement to the function of a computer system or computer technology. It is unclear how the current claim language improves the communication network.
As stated in the previous response to arguments above, the Applicant’s newly amended limitation of “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” was analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as being an additional element. However, this additional element is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. 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.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Third, the present embodiments are similar to the very examples that the USPTO has put forth as examples of patentable subject matter. The Examiner is encouraged to revisit “Example 1” of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples that contained an example claim that is directed to “removing malicious code from an email.” The USPTO concluded that such claim “recites a series of acts for protecting a computer,” that is similar to the present independent claims that recites a series of acts protecting a communication network.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that the Applicant’s invention of automated rule generation for network functions is not the same as “removing malicious code from an email” in Example 1. It is unclear how generating a rule is similar to “a series of acts for protecting a computer”. The current claim language does not recite that the rules have been used to identify malicious code and then the code is removed. The current claim language simply generates a rule and installs/deploys the rule into a fault monitoring application program. There is no recitation of “malicious code” or “protecting a computer” in the current claim language. There is also no positive recitation that the fault monitoring application program is even executed.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
In the present case, the claims do not recite and are therefore also not “directed to” an alleged “mental process.” In particular, the claimed embodiments cannot practically be performed in a human mind, and thus do not recite a “mental process” and are not “directed to” an alleged “mental process.” In addition, the present claims recite an improved method for automated rule generation for network functions, i.e., improving the functions of a software application implemented on a computing device, thus clearly demonstrating a practical application.
In this regard, the present independent claims 1, 13, and 19 are amended with support found in the Specification at least at paragraphs [0016], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0035], [0040], [0077] and [0091] to clarify and to additionally recite (€.g., as in independent claim 1 and similarly in independent claims 13 and 19) “installing, by the system, the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program; 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.” Notably, a human mind cannot practically “install the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program; and deploy the fault monitoring application program within the communication network for monitoring the at least one network operation of the network function.” Thus, the present amendments further foreclose any interpretation that the claims recite an abstract idea of a “mental process.”
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection to claims 1, 13 and 19, the Examiner has not analyzed “installing, by the system, the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program; 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.” Under Step 2A, Prong 1 as being a mental process. These limitations were analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as being additional elements.
Specifically, “installing, by the system, the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program” is merely a recitation 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 under Step 2A, Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
The limitation of “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” is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. 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.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Examiner cites Koster for the claim feature “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.” Applicant respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant’s disclosure teaches the method where the rule template was created corresponding to a rule format associated with an fault monitoring application program, 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. This arrangement allows a user to simply provide the relevant data to create the rule for the fault monitoring application program using the rule template. The alleged combination (as taught by Koster) fails to teach or suggest how the rule template was initially constructed, and more importantly, fails to teach that the rule template was constructed corresponding to a rule format such that 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.
The section cited in Koster as noted above merely allows a user to change the rule template. This is exactly the problem noted in Applicant's Specification that such manual modifications by a user may lead to errors. In contrast, Applicant’s rule template was generated or created based on the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program so that only a data file is provided (e.g., from a user) to directly generate a rule for the fault monitoring application program. This feature is simply missing from the teaching of Koster. However, the Examiner now cites to Koster paragraph [0053] for this reaching (See Office Action, page 32). Koster paragraph [0053] states:
[0053] The administrator as shown is an exemplary user of the system
and may, for example, also be a network operator or the like. The
administrator or user uses a graphical user interface (GUI) of a Rule
Editor module to define desired/required monitoring rules. By way of this
GUI, the administrator or user may act on pre-defined templates
representing a basic rule pattern each. The templates for use may be
delivered as a set of files, for example in XML (Extensible Markup
Language) format or any other conceivable document description
language. The provided templates, e.g. XML files, may be stored in a
template library being linked with and thus being accessible by the Rule
Editor according to the present embodiment. The Rule Editor thus
implements, among others, a visualization of the rule patterns, Le.
templates, for usage in rule generation or modification, which includes dialogs for filing variables and options of the templates (see below for details). Furthermore, the Rule Editor according to the present embodiment contains a rule code generator for generating or modifying the respective desired/required rules from one template or plural combined templates (e.g. implementation specific data) and the information provided by the administrator or user (e.g. network or service specific data). The generated rules may be directly deployed to a Rule Engine, or may be further modified. According to embodiments of the present invention, the modification may take place in two different equivalent views, that is the code view (also referred to as editor view) and the more abstract template view (also referred to as wizard view). Details concerning the views and their usage are given below with reference to FIGS. 4 and 5. (Emphasis added.)
The above cited paragraph in Koster clearly states that it is the user that is making manual selection of a particular template which directly teaches away from the present disclosure that provides an automated rule generation module without the need of a user interacting with a rule editor as disclosed by Koster. Furthermore the Examiner now broadly concludes that the term “basic rule pattern” as being equivalent to the “rule format” of Applicant's independent claims. However, Applicant’s independent claims specifically recite “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.” The Examiner provided absolutely no explanation as to how the mere term “basic rule pattern” is able to teach or make obvious Applicant's specific claim recitations as to specific fields in the rule template.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant argues that Koster “fails to teach or suggest how the rule template was initially constructed, and more importantly, fails to teach that the rule template was constructed corresponding to a rule format such that 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.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Koster discloses that a user is able to select a rule template which includes a number of variables and options and make any adjustments as needed. (see Paragraphs 57 and 72) This disclose teaches or suggests how the rule template is initially constructed. Also, the disclosure that the rule template contains “a number of variables and options” reads on the Applicant’s claim language of “the rule template was constructed corresponding to a rule format such that 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”. Koster also states that “[t]emplate variables hold, for example, network operator specific knowledge (e.g. names of alarms or network performance measurements, comparison operations, thresholds, repair script names, etc.) and need to be filled by the administrator before constructing a rule from a template. That is, placeholder variable names may be replaced by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process. These “placeholder variable names” can be reasonably interpreted as the Applicant’s “tag and the group of rule elements arranged within respective fields in relation to each other in the rule template”.
Further, Applicant argues that “[i]n contrast, Applicant’s rule template was generated or created based on the rule format associated with the fault monitoring application program so that only a data file is provided (e.g., from a user) to directly generate a rule for the fault monitoring application program. This feature is simply missing from the teaching of Koster.” As can be seen in the §103 rejection to claim 1 above, the Examiner has not relied on Koster alone to teach that “only a data file is provided (e.g., from a user) to directly generate a rule for the fault monitoring application program”. It is through the combination of Koster and Brown. Specifically, Koster discloses generating a rule for a fault monitoring application program using data provided by a user but is silent that the data is provided via a data file. Brown was used to modify that the data can be provided via a data file. Brown discloses that data can be stored in within a generation model and include specific location, type of business, home or user (data file) which is used to generate one or more automation rules. (see Paragraphs 37-38)
Further still, Applicant argues that Koster “clearly states that it is the user that is making manual selection of a particular template which directly teaches away from the present disclosure that provides an automated rule generation module without the need of a user interacting with a rule editor”. The Examiner would like to note that the current claim language does not preclude the interpretation of a user making manual selection to a particular template as the current claim language does not specifically state that there is no user intervention/interaction in the rule generation.
Further still, Applicant argues that “the Examiner now broadly concludes that the term ‘basic rule pattern’ as being equivalent to the ‘rule format’ of Applicant's independent claims” and that “[t]he Examiner provided absolutely no explanation as to how the mere term “basic rule pattern” is able to teach or make obvious Applicant's specific claim recitations as to specific fields in the rule template”. As stated in the response to arguments above, Koster discloses that the basic rule pattern includes “a number of variables and options” (see Paragraph 57) which can be reasonably interpreted as the Applicant’s “rule format”. Further, Koster states that “[t]emplate variables hold, for example, network operator specific knowledge (e.g. names of alarms or network performance measurements, comparison operations, thresholds, repair script names, etc.) and need to be filled by the administrator before constructing a rule from a template. That is, placeholder variable names may be replaced by actual variables to be used during the rule generation process. These “placeholder variable names” can be reasonably interpreted as the Applicant’s “tag and the group of rule elements arranged within respective fields in relation to each other in the rule template”.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Brown and Paulus fail to cure the deficiency of Koster since Brown was only cited for the teaching of “data is obtained from a data file associated with a user identity,” and “adjusting/modifying automation rules/templates based on the habits or mannerisms of a user can read on the applicant’s claim language of ‘data is obtained from a data file associated with a user identity” and Paulus was only cited for the teaching that “data that are arranged in a structured format or an unstructured format.” However, the Examiner’s attention is directed to the fact that Brown and Paulus do not cure Koster in that the rule template was created corresponding to a rule format associated with a fault monitoring application program, 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. The mere fact that “data associated with user identity can be obtained from the data file” as taught by Brown and “data can be in a structured format or an unstructured format” as taught by Paulus serves absolutely no purpose in curing Koster.
The mere fact that “data associated with user identity can be obtained from the data file” as taught by Brown and “data can be in a structured format or an unstructured format” as taught by Paulus when combined with Koster’s deficiency would not make obvious the current independent claims.
In other words, the alleged combination (as taught by Koster, Brown, and Paulus) only discloses how to manually create a rule for an application.
Examiner’s Response:
Please see response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
As discussed above, Koster in view of Brown and Paulus fails to disclose or suggest a method, system, or non-transitory computer readable medium to “determining, by a system comprising a processor, a rule template that relates to a network function that performs at least one network operation within a communication network, wherein the rule template corresponds to a rule format associated with a fault monitoring application 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; generating, by the system, at least one rule relating to the network function based on an 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, and replacing the tag in the rule template with an item of the items of the data that relates to the variable; installing, by the system, the at least one rule in the fault monitoring application program, 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,” as recited in the Applicant’s independent claim 1 (and similarly in independent claims 13, and 19). Hettenkofer fails to bridge this gap in the teachings of Koster, Brown, and Paulus. Thus, the Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 13, and 19 are not unpatentable over Koster in view of Brown, Paulus, and Hettenkofer.
Moreover, claims 9-11 depend from independent claim 1 and recite at least all of the features recited in independent claim 1. As such, claims 9-11 are also not unpatentable over Koster in view of Brown, Paulus, and Hettenkofer. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. §103 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response:
Please see response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
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 LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LU/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights