DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 08/22/2025. Claims 11 and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-21 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
3. Regarding Step 1, claim 1 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 9 recites a manufacture, (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.), claim 17 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Regarding Step 2A – [Prong One]:
5. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite:
“receive…a document;”, “convert…the document from a first format to a JSON format;”, “provide the document in the JSON format to identify data within the document indicating one or more deliverables;”, “extract…the data indicating one or more deliverables from the document in the JSON format;”, “store…at least one of the document in the JSON format or the data indicating the one or more deliverables;”, “determine…one or more technical requirements of a network for the one or more deliverables, the one or more technical requirements determined at least in part on the results of the network function test case;” and “store…the one or more technical requirements of the network”
The limitations demonstrate the independent claims recite an abstract idea of determining deliverables and technical requirements from a document which encompasses a fundamental economic practice (i.e., mitigating risks), a commercial/legal interaction (i.e., legal obligation, advertising, marketing/sales activities or business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). The limitations cover subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II
The Applicant’s Specification emphasizes in at least [0001]The present invention generally relates to digitizing documents and testing requirements identified within the digitized document on a telecom network. [0002]Existing solutions for document and network management are manual, disaggregated and reactive. Currently, there is no end-to-end solution, which automatically extracts requirements from documents, creates databases and triggers automated testing of a network. In addition to the above all finance and accounting related actions related to deliverables, quality of the network and more are mainly executed manually.
The limitations that recite “receive”, “convert”, “provide”, “extract”, “store”, “determine” in the context of the claim cover acts a user may follow to manage and evaluate identified deliverables and technical requirements related to a document, i.e., contract, to monitor performance or metrics related to how a telecom service provider is behaving. Thus, the limitations are related to concepts for mitigating risks – ensuring services meet business needs, legal obligations, and managing personal behavior or interactions between people that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The step of “extract” in the context of the claim also covers mental processes for parsing and comparing data, which is a step that can be performed in the human mind with or without pen and paper. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea.
6. Regarding Step 2A [Prong Two], independent claims include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
“a computing system”, “memory storing computer program instructions;”, “one or more processors configured to execute the computer program instructions, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:”, “by a computing system”, “by the computing system”, “a machine learning model, the machine learning model comprising a natural language processor configured to”, “by the machine learning model”, “an authoritative CTR governance database”, “a network testing module of the computing system”, “the authoritative CTR governance database”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured to cause at least one processor to execute”, “a computer-implemented method” – see claims 1, 9, and 17, are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. The applicant’s specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing any of the particulars, such that the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computer components being used to perform the abstract idea. The recited additional elements are merely adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The other additional elements of: “execute…a network function test case, the test case based at least in part on the data indicating the one or more deliverables;” adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The other additional elements of: “for determining the technical requirements of a deliverable” is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, but does not add anything meaningful to the claim, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
7. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a computing system”, “memory storing computer program instructions;”, “one or more processors configured to execute the computer program instructions, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:”, “by a computing system”, “by the computing system”, “a machine learning model, the machine learning model comprising a natural language processor configured to”, “by the machine learning model”, “an authoritative CTR governance database”, “a network testing module of the computing system”, “the authoritative CTR governance database”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured to cause at least one processor to execute”, “a computer-implemented method” – see claims 1, 9, and 17 are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The other additional element of: “execute…a network function test case, the test case based at least in part on the data indicating the one or more deliverables;” was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and thus re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI Communications LLC, OIP Techs, buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicated that: “storing and retrieving information over a network” is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a generic manner. Thus, at Step 2B the claim(s) are ineligible.
8. Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12-16, 19-21 are dependent from claims 1, 9, and 17. Dependent claims 2 and 10 recite “using data from the authoritative CTR governance database in business intelligence operations.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, claim 3 recites wherein “create, by a code, a JSON file associated with the document; and upload, by the code, of the JSON file into a tracking software, wherein the uploading of the JSON file comprises extracting data from the document.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 4, 12, and 19 recite “upload, by a code embedded in a central repository, deliverables, technical specification and other information needed to be tracked; and generate, by a project management module, unique IDs, wherein the unique IDS are associated with the deliverables, technical specification and other information;” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20 recite “updating, by the code, the document in the JSON format with new information found in the document using the unique IDs.;”, “creating, by the code, a new document in the JSON format with new information found in the document using the unique IDs.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 7, 15, and 21 recite “upload a document via a user interface UI; invoke a machine learning (ML) model upon uploading of the document; automatically extract, by the ML model, the content from the document; and upload the extracted content in a project management module.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. In the instant case, the machine learning model is recited at a high-level of generality and merely being used to apply the exception, claims 8 and 16 recite “generate, by the ML model, the document in the JSON format based at least in part on the extracted content” which further describe the type of data/information recited in the abstract idea but does not make the claim any less abstract. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits for integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geber (US 2021/0319173 A1) in view of Raju (US 2023/0236802 A1) in further view of Saxena (US 2022/0303206 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, Gerber discloses
a computing system (¶ 0014: discloses the system 100), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶ 0004), and computer-implemented method (¶ 0004) for determining the technical requirements of a deliverable (¶ 0028), comprising:
a memory storing computer program instructions (Fig. 8, ¶ 0004: discloses memory 812); and
one or more processors (Fig. 8, ¶ 0004: discloses processor 810) configured to execute the computer program instructions (Fig. 8, ¶ 0140),
wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
receive, by a computing system, a document (¶ 0031, 0039: discloses one or more client devices upload new regulatory documents 114);
convert, by the computing system, the document from a first format to a JSON format (¶ 0041, 0048: discloses transformation or conversion of unstructured version of a document to a structured version of the document. The structured version of the document may be provided in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format.);
store, by the computing system, at least one of the document in the JSON format or the data indicating the one or more deliverables in an authoritative CTR governance database (¶ 0014, 0018: discloses the governance database 108 configured to store and record information relating to governance of the IT infrastructure.);
The Gerber reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, the Raju reference is related to techniques for automatically evaluating deliverables for compliance with requirements of one or more compliance specifications (¶ 0015) and teaches:
provide the document in the JSON format (¶ 0023, 0027-0028: discloses the data pre-processing functionality may convert the compliance specification from its original format to a JSON format.) to a machine learning model (¶ 0023,0028: discloses the JSON format may impart a structure to the text of the compliance specification that helps modelling engine 120 identify important section of the compliance specification.),
the machine learning model comprising a natural language processor (¶ 0024: discloses the modeling engine 120 may utilize Google Natural Language API) configured to identify data within the document indicating one or more deliverables (¶ 0015, 0022, 0024, 0044: discloses machine learning techniques are utilized for automatically evaluating deliverables for compliance with requirements of one or more compliance specifications.);
extract, by the machine learning model, the data indicating one or more deliverables from the document in the JSON format (¶ 0016, 0021, 0024, 0041, 0045: discloses modelling engine extracts requirements from compliance specification.);
determine, by the computing system, one or more technical requirements of a network for the one or more deliverables (¶ 0016, 0020: discloses the system 100 leverages automated processes supported by artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques to evaluate whether the deliverable is compliant with one or more requirements contained within the compliance specification.), and
store, by the computing system, the one or more technical requirements of the network in the authoritative CTR governance database. (¶ 0015, 0040: discloses a log that identifies any requirements for which the deliverable is not compliant. The log may capture relevant portions of the deliverable in connection with each requirement.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gerber’s regulatory compliance system and methods, to include techniques for provide the document in the JSON format to a machine learning model the machine learning model comprising a natural language processor configured to identify data within the document indicating one or more deliverables extract, by the machine learning model, the data indicating one or more deliverables from the document in the JSON format determine, by the computing system, one or more technical requirements of a network for the one or more deliverables and store, by the computing system, the one or more technical requirements of the network in the authoritative CTR governance database, as disclosed by Raju to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Raju, the motivation for the combination would have been to leverage machine learning techniques in order to reduce manual error, save time, and achieve more accurate compliance assessments. (¶ 0002-0003, 0015)
The combination of Gerber and Raju does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Saxena reference is related to techniques for automatically generating network function test cases. (abstract)
execute, by the computing system, a network function test case (¶ 0058, 0060: discloses automated network testing system 212 can execute test case 210 by repeating the network status parameters) on a network testing module of the computing system (¶ 0058: discloses ATS can be implemented as software that is used on the system under test to check if the system is functioning as expected and provides end-to-end testing), the test case based at least in part on the data indicating the one or more deliverables (¶ 0056, 0058: discloses test case specifies one or more network status parameters detected when detecting a failure case.); the one or more technical requirements determined at least in part on the results of the network function test case (¶ 0043, 0061, 0079, 0126: discloses associating test case with network function and one or more other network function test cases. Arranges test cases on 5G N F-Type, 5G service operations, error category, or using any appropriate type of category.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Gerber and Raju, to include execute, by the computing system, a network function test case on a network testing module of the computing system, the test case based at least in part on the data indicating the one or more deliverables; the one or more technical requirements determined at least in part on the results of the network function test case, as disclosed by Saxena to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by the Saxena reference, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages to network operators for verifying network function integrity and ensure network functions are operating according to specifications. (¶ 0043)
With respect to claims 2 and 10, the combination of Gerber, Raju, and Saxena discloses the computing system and non-transitory computer-readable medium,
wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
using data from the authoritative CTR governance database in business intelligence operations. ( ¶ 0014, 0018, 0023, 0025, 0028, 0065: Gerber discloses providing alerts or notifications from the GRC system 102, i.e., when new regulations are detected, when compliance with one or more existing regulations has failed, to users of the client devices. The client devices are operated by one or more companies, businesses, organizations, enterprises, or other entities.)
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Gerber, Raju, and Saxena discloses the computing system of claim 1,
wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
create, by a code, a JSON file associated with the document (¶ 0040-0041 – See Gerber); and
upload, by the code, of the JSON file into a tracking software (¶ 0041, 0069: Gerber discloses the control mapping service takes as input one or more designated structured file formats. Regulatory compliance management software may require conversion to a structured format.), wherein the uploading of the JSON file comprises extracting data from the document. (¶ 0040-0041: Gerber discloses extracting portions of the text data from the document.)
With respect to claims 4, 12, and 19, the combination of Gerber, Raju, and Saxena discloses the computing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer-implemented method, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
upload, by a code embedded in a central repository, deliverables, technical specification and other information needed to be tracked (¶ 0018, 0031: Gerber discloses one or more client devices upload new regulatory documents. The governance database 108 is configured to store and record information relating to a set of regulations, policies, contracts, obligations or other rules that one or more enterprises operating the IT infrastructure are subject to.); and
generate, by a project management module, unique IDs, wherein the unique IDS are associated with the deliverables, technical specification and other information (¶ 0028-0029, 0041-0041: Gerber discloses the content extraction module is configured to generate a structured version of a document. For formats such as JSON, the structured version of the document may comprise a unique identifier for a given one of the identified items in the structure.);
With respect to claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20, the combination of Gerber, Raju, and Saxena discloses the computing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer-implemented method, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
updating, by the code, the document in the JSON format with new information found in the document using the unique IDs. (¶ 0028-0029, 0041: Gerber discloses updating to adapt changing and new regulation in the regulatory documents. The regulatory documents may each have a unique identifier ID and title. The new regulatory documents are used to create or output structured data. The structured version of the document may be provided in JavaScript Object Notation format.)
creating, by the code, a new document in the JSON format with new information found in the document using the unique IDs. (¶ 0028-0031, 0040-0041: Geber discloses uploading new regulatory documents each having a unique identifier ID and title. The regulatory documents are used to create or output a structured version of a document.)
With respect to claims 7, 15, and 21, Gerber discloses the computing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer-implemented method, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
upload a document via a user interface (¶ 0022-0023, 0031: Gerber discloses one or more of the client devices 104 upload new regulatory documents 114. One or more devices input-output devices such as displays may used to support one or more user interfaces to the GRC system as well as support communication between the GRC system.);
The Gerber reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
However, Raju teaches:
invoke a machine learning (ML) model upon uploading of the document (¶ 0023: discloses converting the document in a second format, i.e., JSON, that helps the modelling engine identify important sections of the compliance specification.);
automatically extract, by the ML model, the content from the document (¶ 0021: discloses the modelling engine 120 may provide functionality configured to automatically extract requirements from the compliance specification.); and upload the extracted content in a project management module (¶ 0040)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system and methods of Gerber to include the machine learning model functionality as disclosed by Raju to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Raju, the motivation for the combination would have been to reduce manual error and save time in order achieve more accurate compliance assessments. (¶ 0002-0003, 0015)
With respect to claims 8 and 16, the combination of Gerber, Raju, and Saxena discloses the computing system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
generate, by the ML model, the document in the JSON format based at least in part on the extracted content (¶ 0016, 0023: Raju discloses the automated processes and supporting artificial intelligence processes may be configured to automatically extract requirements information from the compliance specification in JSON format and utilize the extracted requirements to construct a model of the requirements which represents the document being generated. The model of the requirements, i.e., generated document in JSON format, may subsequently be used to automatically analyze the deliverable and determine whether the deliverable satisfies all, some, or none of the requirements of the compliance specification.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Support for this amendment may be found in at least pars. [0032]-[0037] of the Specification as filed. Specifically, "integrated network testing modules 215 may include test cases, which are built around requirements within authoritative CTR governance database 220." Specification, par. [0036]; FIG. 2. Furthermore, "an internal test may be described as testing the latency of a point to point connection. An external test may be described as testing being done by external partners, which will provide information on the performance of the network." Id.”
“Amended claim 17 satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 under Step 2A Prong 1 because "executing a network function test case on a network testing module" does not recite an abstract idea (i.e., a method of organizing human activity, mental process, etc.). As the test cases may be "executed internally to the network," the test cases clearly involve components within the network. This understanding is made stronger as they are further defined as "network function test cases" in pars. [0018] and [0040]. Network functions are known in the field as components of wireless networks (e.g., a 5G cellular network) that are integral in performing various tasks on data packets used to control and transmit data signals both inside the network and to and from external entities.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. In the instant case, simply reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment [such as a network testing module] in a claim does not confer eligibility. The step for "executing a network function test case” was considered as insignificant extra solution activity under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. This limitation simply performs necessary data gathering in conjunction with implementing the abstract idea. The passages [¶ 0032-0037] cited by Applicant from the specification describe a process for digitizing a contract. The contract is uploaded by a user and converted into JSON format by the computer system. The metadata from the contract is extracted and processed by the computer system to identify deliverables and technical requirements which are stored in a database. Accordingly, the specification confirms the ordered combination of limitations recited in the claim are related to concepts for mitigating risks – ensuring services meet business needs, legal obligations, and managing personal behavior or interactions between people that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “It is impossible-let alone impractical-for the human mind to perform these tasks. Testing network functions based on deliverables is similarly impossible for the human mind, regardless of the source of the deliverables. "executing, by the computing system, a network function test case on a network testing module of the computing system, the test case based at least in part on the data indicating the one or more deliverables" is similarly impossible for the human mind.”
“Similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 39, executing network function test cases "cannot be practically performed in the human mind," and therefore cannot be a mental process. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Ex. 38. Executing network function test cases are also none of a fundamental economic practice, a commercial/legal interaction, or method of managing interactions between people. Thus, per SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, supra, the method of amended claim 1 could not be performed entirely in the human mind, and amended claim 1 are not direct to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. It is important for Applicant to note that the “executing” step was considered an additional element in the rejection, it was not addressed as performing a mental process as disputed by Applicant. As previously explained, simply adding a step for testing network functions in a claim does not preclude the remaining identified limitations recited in the claim from falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. Next, the Applicant’s reply attempts to use Training Example 39 and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n. to support their position, however, none of the factual patterns discussed in the Training Example 39 or SIRF Tech are relevant to the instant claims. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Furthermore, even if some of the elements of amended claim 17 were directed towards a judicial exception, amended claim 17 would still satisfy Step 2A Prong 2. By executing network function test cases on network testing modules, the method of amended claim 17 "is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Ex. 19. Specifically, the technical requirements determined and stored using the method of amended claim 17 may be used to "determin[e] how a network should be operating or how the network should be deployed." Specification, par. [0040]. By executing network function test cases, the method of amended claim 17 therefore overcomes a configuration problem unique to the network, as dictated by the deliverables. Thus, even if amended claim 17 were directed towards a judicial exception, all elements of amended claim 17 are integrated into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. For example, the step of “executing network function test cases on network testing modules” adds some specificity to the claim, however, it does not automatically lead to patent eligibility. Next, the reply points to “technical requirements determined and stored using the method may be used to determine how a network should be operating or how the network should be deployed” which at best are limitations that are part of the abstract idea. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The reply alleges the claim overcomes “a configuration problem unique to the network” and also points to [¶ 0040] of the Specification which has been reproduced below:
Fig. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating a method 300 for determining how a network should be operating or how the network should be deployed using a digitized document, according to an embodiment of the present invention. In some embodiments, method 300 includes digitizing a contract into a standard digital format, e.g., JSON format, at 305. At 310, the digitized contract is stored in an authoritative CTR governance datastore, and at 315, the technical requirements extract from the digitized contract are organized within the authoritative CTR governance datastore. At 320, network function test cases are linked to the technical requirements, which are organized in the authoritative CTR governance datastore. At 325, the results of the network testing are stored in the authoritative CTR governance datastore, and at 330, the data from the authoritative CTR governance datastore used in the business intelligence operations is received.
The cited passage [¶ 0040] from the Specification discusses the method for how the network function tests cases are linked and stored at a high-level of generality in a result oriented manner. There are no findings identified from the Specification or provided by Applicant that discuss “a configuration problem unique to the network”. Thus, the claimed invention remains ineligible because the Specification and limitations recite a result-oriented solution for identifying and storing technical requirements from a document rather than a technological solution to a technological problem as required by the guidance. See MPEP 2106.05(a) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues “Amended claim 17 now recites, in relevant part, "executing, by the computing system, a network function test case on a network testing module of the computing system, the network function test case based at least in part on the data indicating the one or more deliverables." As agreed upon during the interview, Gerber and Parrish are both directed towards analyzing documents. Neither Gerber nor Parrish, considered individually or in combination, disclose are least "executing, by the computing system, a network function test case on a network testing module of the computing system, the network function test case based at least in part on the data indicating the one or more deliverables." Therefore, amended claim 17-and all claims depending therefrom- is believed to be in condition for allowance. Applicant respectfully requests the rejection be removed. Similar amendments have been made to amended claims 1 and 9 so similar arguments apply. Thus, amended claims 1 and 9, as well as the claims depending from each, are believed to be in condition for allowance. Applicant respectfully requests the rejections be removed.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629