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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method for providing Kafka header based schema management, comprising: preparing, by a microservice, one or more Management Tags including one or more Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM) Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags based on one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Source Files used by the microservice; encoding, by the microservice, PM or FM data using one or more of an Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM or FM data; embedding, by the microservice, the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in a Header of a Kafka Message; embedding, by the microservice, the encoded PM or FM data in a Message Body of the Kafka Message; and sending the Kafka Message to a Northbound Management System for decoding based on the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags embedded in the Header of the Kafka Message”.
The limitations of “A method for providing Kafka header based schema management, comprising: preparing, by a microservice, one or more Management Tags including one or more Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM) Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags based on one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Source Files used by the microservice; encoding, by the microservice, PM or FM data using one or more of an Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM or FM data; embedding, by the microservice, the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in a Header of a Kafka Message; embedding, by the microservice, the encoded PM or FM data in a Message Body of the Kafka Message; “a Northbound Management System”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a Northbound Management System” to perform the claimed steps. The “Northbound Management System” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a Northbound Management System” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements 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 of using “a Northbound Management System” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the preparing, by the microservice, the one or more Management Tags further includes preparing Additional Management Tags, wherein the Additional Management Tags include one or more a Base Station Identifier Tag, an Event Timestamp Tag, or a Reporting Out Period (ROP) Timestamp Tag”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein: the preparing, by the microservice, the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags further includes preparing, by a Fault Management (FM) Microservice, one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags; the encoding, by the microservice, the PM or FM data using the one or more Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM or FM data further includes encoding the PM or FM data using the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded FM data; the embedding the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of a the Kafka Message further includes embedding the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of [[the]] an FM Kafka Message; the embedding the encoded PM or FM data in the Message Body of the Kafka Message further includes embedding the encoded FM data in the Message Body of the FM Kafka Message; and ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “the sending the Kafka Message to‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 3, wherein the embedding the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of the FM Kafka Message further includes embedding the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of the FM Kafka Message useable for identifying an FM decoder configured for decoding encoded FM data using the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the preparing, by the microservice, the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags further includes preparing, by a Performance Management (PM) Microservice, one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 5, wherein the encoding the PM or FM data using one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM or FM data further includes encoding the PM or FM data using the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM data, the embedding the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of the Kafka Message further includes embedding the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of a PM Kafka Message, the embedding the encoded PM or FM data in the Message Body of the Kafka Message further includes embedding the encoded PM data in the Message Body of the PM Kafka Message, and ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “the sending the Kafka Message to‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 6, wherein the embedding the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of the PM Kafka Message further includes embedding the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of the PM Kafka Message useable for identifying a PM decoder configured for decoding encoded PM data using the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An apparatus for providing Kafka header based schema version management, configured for: preparing, using a microservice, one or more Management Tags including one or more Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM) Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags based on one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Source Files; encoding PM or FM data by the microservice using one or more of an Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM or FM data; embedding, by the microservice, the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in a Header of a Kafka Message; embedding, by the microservice, the encoded PM or FM data in a Message Body of the Kafka Message; and sending the Kafka Message to a Northbound Management System for decoding based on the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags embedded in the Header of the Kafka Message”.
The limitations of “the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “an apparatus” and “a Northbound Management System” to perform the claimed steps. The “apparatus” and “Northbound Management System” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “an apparatus”, “a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and a processor connected to the memory” and “a Northbound Management System” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements 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 of using “an apparatus” and “a Northbound Management System” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded FM data, to embed the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of [[an]] the Kafka Message by embedding, by the FM Microservice, the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of [[the]]an FM Kafka Message, to embed the encoded PM or FM data in the Message Body of the Kafka Message by embedding, by the FM Microservice, the encoded FM data in the Message Body of the FM Kafka Message, and to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “send the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The apparatus of claim 11, further configured to embed the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of the FM Kafka Message by embedding the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of the FM Kafka Message useable for identifying an FM decoder configured for decoding encoded FM data using one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags; to encode the PM or FM data using one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM or FM data by encoding, by the PM Microservice, the PM or FM data using a the one or more FM Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM data; to embed the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of [[a]] the Kafka Message by embedding, by the PM Microservice, the one or more PM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of a PM Kafka Message; to embed the encoded PM or FM data in the Message Body of the PM Kafka Message by embedding, by the PM Microservice, the encoded PM data in the Message Body of the PM Kafka Message; and to “sending the PM Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “to send the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed causes performance of operations comprising: preparing, by a microservice, one or more Management Tags including one or more Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags based on one or more Encoding Type or Schema Source Files used by the microservice; encoding, by the microservice, data using a corresponding one or more Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded data; embedding, by the microservice, the one or more Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in a Header of a Kafka Message; embedding, by the microservice, the encoded data in a Message Body of the Kafka Message; and sending the Kafka Message to a Northbound Management System for decoding based on the one or more Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of the Kafka Message”.
The limitations of “microservice, the encoded data in a Message Body of the Kafka Message; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory computer-readable media” and “a Northbound Management System” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory computer-readable media” and “Northbound Management System” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory computer-readable media” and “a Northbound Management System” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “sending the Kafka Message to Internet to gather data, 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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements 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 of using “a non-transitory computer-readable media” and “a Northbound Management System” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also discloses the additional element of “sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also discloses the additional element of “the sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “the sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also discloses the additional element of “the sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “the sending the Kafka Message to ‐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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giblin et al. (‘Giblin’ hereinafter) (Giblin et al. "Securing Kafka with encryption-at-rest." 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 2021) in view of Comer et al. (‘Comer’ hereinafter) (Comer et al., "Externalization of packet processing in software defined networking." IEEE Networking Letters 1.3 (2019): 124-127).
As per claim 1, Giblin teaches
A method for providing Kafka header based schema management, comprising: (see abstract and introduction)
preparing,
encoding,
embedding,
embedding,
and sending the Kafka Message Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003) “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See MPEP 2111.04).
Giblin does not explicitly indicate “by a microservice”, “by the microservice”, “to a Northbound Management System”.
However, Comer discloses “by a microservice”, “by the microservice” (microservice control plane that splits controller into smaller and interconnected services, Introduction, page 1, and Conclusion, page 4), “to a Northbound Management System” (Northbound (NB) interface that defines communication between an external management application and control plane software running in the controller, Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Giblin and Comer because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by dividing a monolithic controller into smaller pieces (see Comer, Abstract). This gives the user the advantage of providing for improved reusability among software modules (see Comer, Introduction).
Neither Giblin nor Comer expressly show “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The type of encoding or tagging is not functionally described and therefore one of skill in the art would know that it could be performed the same regardless of the type. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of encoding type, schema type, or data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 2, Giblin teaches
the preparing, by the microservice, the one or more Management Tags further includes preparing Additional Management Tags (inspect and transform messages to include topic encryption policy and keys, page 2, right column, through page 3, where message can include multiple topics and keys),
Giblin does not expressly show “wherein the Additional Management Tags include one or more a Base Station Identifier Tag, an Event Timestamp Tag, or a Reporting Out Period (ROP) Timestamp Tag”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The preparing of additional tags would be performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of tag having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 3, Giblin teaches
preparing,
the encoding,
the embedding the one or more Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in the Header of a
the embedding the encoded
and the sending the Kafka Message Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003) “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See MPEP 2111.04).
Giblin does not explicitly indicate “by the microservice”, “by a Fault Management (FM) Microservice”, “to the Northbound Management System”.
However, Comer discloses “by the microservice” (microservice control plane that splits controller into smaller and interconnected services, Introduction, page 1, and Conclusion, page 4), “by a Fault Management (FM) Microservice” (SDN architecture where components can be divided and embody software module that monitor failures and topology changes which are implemented as microservices, Introduction), “to the Northbound Management System” (Northbound (NB) interface that defines communication between an external management application and control plane software running in the controller, Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Giblin and Comer because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by dividing a monolithic controller into smaller pieces (see Comer, Abstract). This gives the user the advantage of providing for improved reusability among software modules (see Comer, Introduction).
Neither Giblin nor Comer expressly show “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The type of encoding or tagging is not functionally described and therefore one of skill in the art would know that it could be performed the same regardless of the type. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of encoding type, schema type, or data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 4, Giblin teaches
the embedding the one or more
useable for identifying an
Neither Giblin nor Comer expressly show “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The type of encoding or tagging is not functionally described and therefore one of skill in the art would know that it could be performed the same regardless of the type. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of encoding type, schema type, or data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 8,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 9, Giblin teaches
prepare Additional Management Tags (inspect and transform messages to include topic encryption policy and keys, page 2, right column, through page 3, where message can include multiple topics and keys),
Giblin does not expressly show “wherein the Additional Management Tags include one or more a Base Station Identifier Tag, an Event Timestamp Tag, or a Reporting Out Period (ROP) Timestamp Tag”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The preparing of additional tags would be performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of tag having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Neither Giblin nor Comer expressly show “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The type of encoding or tagging is not functionally described and therefore one of skill in the art would know that it could be performed the same regardless of the type. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of encoding type, schema type, or data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claims 10-11,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 3 and are similarly rejected.
As per claim 12,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
As per claims 15-18,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-4 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 5-7, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giblin et al. (‘Giblin’ hereinafter) (Giblin et al. "Securing Kafka with encryption-at-rest." 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 2021) in view of Comer et al. (‘Comer’ hereinafter) (Comer et al., "Externalization of packet processing in software defined networking." IEEE Networking Letters 1.3 (2019): 124-127) and further in view of Szigeti et al. (‘Szigeti’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240073186).
As per claim 5, Giblin teaches
the preparing, by the microservice, the one or more
Neither Giblin nor Comer explicitly indicate “by a Performance Management (PM) Microservice”.
However, Szigeti discloses “by a Performance Management (PM) Microservice” (performance management agent running on a microservice, paragraph [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Giblin, Comer and Szigeti because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by ensuring that larger multi-national organizations and enterprises adhere to data compliance regulations in the countries and geographic regions where they operate (see Szigeti, background). This gives the user the advantage of allowing more efficient monitoring of data compliance using automated tools.
Neither Giblin nor Comer expressly show “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The type of encoding or tagging is not functionally described and therefore one of skill in the art would know that it could be performed the same regardless of the type. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of encoding type, schema type, or data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 6, Giblin teaches
the encoding the
the embedding the one or more
embedding the encoded
and the sending the Kafka Message to Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003) “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See MPEP 2111.04).
Giblin does not explicitly indicate “to a Northbound Management System”.
However, Comer discloses “to a Northbound Management System” (Northbound (NB) interface that defines communication between an external management application and control plane software running in the controller, Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Giblin and Comer because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by dividing a monolithic controller into smaller pieces (see Comer, Abstract). This gives the user the advantage of providing for improved reusability among software modules (see Comer, Introduction).
Neither Giblin nor Comer expressly show “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The type of encoding or tagging is not functionally described and therefore one of skill in the art would know that it could be performed the same regardless of the type. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of encoding type, schema type, or data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 7, Giblin teaches
the embedding the one or more (encryption metadata including encryption policy and key stored in Kafka header, page 7, right column)
useable for identifying a
Neither Giblin nor Comer expressly show “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)”.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The type of encoding or tagging is not functionally described and therefore one of skill in the art would know that it could be performed the same regardless of the type. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of encoding type, schema type, or data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 13,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 5-6 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 14,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
As per claims 19-20,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 5-6 and are similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the independent claims have been amended to recite a “microservice of a base station” that “performs the preparing, encoding, and embedding” and that therefore the “the microservices are specialized components that are configured for supporting disaggregation of network functions of a base station” and are therefore “are not capable of being performed in the mind, i.e., mental processes” (applicant arguments, page 12). However, a review of the amended claims does not find any mention of any “microservice of a base station” as argued by the applicant. The only mention of “base station” is that the “the Additional Management Tags include one or more a Base Station Identifier Tag” in dependent claims 2, 9 and 16. This is a different than what is argued by the applicant and therefore this argument is not convincing.
Applicant further argues that “sending the Kafka Message to a Northbound Management System for decoding based on the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags embedded in the Header of the Kafka Message" does not describe sending in a merely generic manner and therefore the “sending” is not well-understood, routing, and conventional (WURC) (see applicant arguments, page 13). In answer, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) describes the “transmitting” (i.e. the claimed “sending”) of data over a network as WURC and any intention beyond the transmission/sending is does not mean that the transmission/sending itself is not WURC. In this limitation, there is an intention to perform decoding but this step not functionally occur and the claim only indicates that this sent data is “for decoding”. Such intended use is not binding on the claim and therefore the transmission/sending is WURC under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). In additional, the rejections of record do not indicate that the “decoding” step as being an additional element. For these reasons this argument is not convincing and the rejections of record are maintained.
Applicant further argues that “claims are amended to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to ‘significantly more’ than the alleged judicial exceptions by including concrete (i.e., non- abstract) limitations, which are not part of the alleged abstract idea, and that the concrete limitations plus the distinguishing limitations form a claim to a specific concrete article, or method involving a specific concrete articles, etc., which, again, is not shown in the alleged abstract idea” because “Kafka header based encoding type and schema version management is microservice oriented and does not depend on the software version of the gNB NFs” but “[i]nstead the Performance Management Microservice (PM MS)/Fault Management Microservice (FM MS) self publishes its schema to the Northbound Management System” and that the “Northbound Management System is able to be a simpler implementation that does not rely on complicated logic of handling the inventory, and the encoding type and schema version logic, etc.” and the “process involves a simple header check, and then logic for choosing the decoder according to the Tags in the Kafka Message Header” (applicant arguments, pages 13-14). In answer, the applicant appears to be arguing under Step 2B regarding “significantly more”. Such an argument requires a re-evaluation of any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because if such reevaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine conventional activity (WURC), this finding may indicate that the additional element is significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The applicant previously made this argument, which was answered above, as to why the “sending” in the claim was considered WURC. Since these applicant arguments do not seem to adhere to the requirements detailed in the MPEP related to Step 2B, and based on the answer previously given above, the rejections of record are maintained.
The applicant further argues that “as a whole integrates the tentative abstract idea into a practical application providing ‘an inventive concept’ that adds significantly more (‘inventive concept’) to the alleged exception and provides a specific technical solution to address the problems of understanding the impact of timing on varying levels of software”, that “the specification provides a technical explanation with numerous detailed examples, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed subject matter as providing an improvement” and that the “additional elements are not well-known, define the technical solution, and provide ‘an inventive concept’ that adds significantly more (‘inventive concept’) to the alleged exception (applicant arguments, page 14). As previously explained, the additional element of “sending” is WURC as detailed in MPEP 2106.05, where courts have recognized that “transmission” of data over a network is WURC. Since the applicant has not shown this insignificant extra-solution activity to be unconventional or otherwise more than WURC as required under Step 2B the rejections of record are maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Giblin nor Comer disclose the amended language in claim 1, in particular "preparing, by a microservice, one or more Management Tags including one or more Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management
(FM) Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags based on one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Source Files used by the microservice", "encoding, by the microservice, PM or FM data using one or more of an Encoding Type or Schema Version identified by the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags to produce encoded PM or FM data", "embedding, by the microservice, the one or more PM or FM Encoding Type or Schema Version Tags in a Header of a Kafka Message", and "embedding, by the microservice, the encoded PM or FM data in a Message Body of the Kafka Message", and similarly in the other independent claims (see applicant arguments, pages 15-16). In their discussion of the cited references, the applicant does not discuss why the particular claim elements in claim 1 are not taught but seems to indicate that the new subject matter generally is not taught (see applicant arguments, pages 16-17) and repeats these arguments with respect to the other independent claims (see applicant arguments, pages 18-20). However, as shown in the rejections above, neither Giblin nor Comer expressly show the amended language of “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)” and these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The type of encoding or tagging is not functionally described and therefore one of skill in the art would know that it could be performed the same regardless of the type. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any type of encoding type, schema type, or data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. For these reasons the rejections in view of the combination of Giblin and Comer, in addition to the finding that the “Performance Management (PM) or Fault Management (FM)” is non-function descriptive material, reads on the argued claims and so these rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151