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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, 13-14 and 18-19 have been examined in this Final Office Action. Claims 1, 7, 13-14, and 17 have been amended. Claims 11-12, and 15-16 were previously canceled. Claims 1-10, 13-14 and 18-19 are currently pending.
Priority
Application 18/324,076 filed 05/25/2023 claims priority to provisional application 63/349,806 filed 06/07/2022.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 13-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-10, 13-14, and 17-19 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites systems for tracking and avoiding penalties of a service level agreement. For Claims 1, 7 and 14 the limitations of Regarding Claim 1,
[…];
[…] receiving indication of an order selected from the group consisting of: a telecommunications service, a telecommunications device order, technical support, shipping or combinations thereof;
[…] accessing one or more external systems which process the order, the one or more external systems accessed […], and […] identifies one or more events associated with the order based on data accessed at the one or more external systems, […] obtain[s] data concerning those one or more events from the one or more external systems in a data format associated with the one or more external systems and converts said data to a standardized format and stores the data related to the one or more events in the standardized format in the storage;
[…] further determining a maximum time for the order associated with the SLA and further determining from the data related to the one or more events in the standardized format in the storage when to start and stop a timer such that the timer tracks compliance with the maximum time required by the SLA associated with the order based on the data related to the one or more events in the standardized format such that the SLA […] automatically starts and stops the timer, wherein the timer is stopped when the data related to the one or more events in the standardized format indicates the order is waiting on information from one or more users and the timer is started when the data related to the one or more events in the standardized format is updated to indicate the information from the one or more users is received;
[…] generating an audit log from the data in the standardized format and when the timer was started and stopped, the audit log indicating one or more reasons the timer stopped or started, the one or more reasons determined based on the one or more events,
Regarding Claim 7
[…];
[…] receiving indication of an order selected from the group consisting of: a telecommunications service, a telecommunications device order, technical support, shipping or combinations thereof;
[…] monitoring a timer set based on an amount of time to complete the order […];
[…] track[s] an amount of time remaining in the timer as compared to an amount of time that is expected to remain until completion of the order and if the comparison exceeds a threshold, […] generate[s] an alert indicative of a SLA penalty or possibility thereof;
[…] determine[s] an actual time to complete the one or more stages of the order and updates the storage with the actual time for the one or more stages […],
wherein the amount of time to complete the order is a maximum time for the order associated with the SLA and the SLA […] further accessing data associated with one or more events in a data format associated with the one or more external systems and converting said data into a standardized format and storing said data in the standardized format in a storage accessible […];
[…] determining from said data in the standardized format when to start and stop the timer such that the timer tracks compliance with a maximum time required by the SLA associated with the order such that the SLA […] automatically starts and stops the timer, wherein the timer is stopped when, based on the data in the standardized format, the one or more events indicate the order is waiting on information from one or more users and the timer is started when the information from the one or more users is received;
[…] generating an audit log from the data in the standardized format, and when the timer was started and stopped, the audit log indicating one or more reasons the timer stopped or started, the one or more reasons determined based on the one or more events.
Regarding Claim 14,
[…];
[…]receiving indication of an order selected from the group consisting of: a telecommunications service, a telecommunications device order, technical support, shipping or combinations thereof;
[…]monitoring a timer set based on an amount of time to complete the order according to the SLA;
[…]determines one or more stages for the order and determines an expected amount of time for completion of each of the one or more stages based on order time history data stored in a storage […].
[…] track[s] an amount of time remaining in the timer as compared to an amount of time that is expected to remain until completion of the order based on the expected time for each of the one or more stages and if the comparison exceeds a threshold, […] generates an alert indicative of a SLA penalty or possibility thereof;
[…] determines an actual time to complete the one or more stages of the order and updates the storage with the actual time for the one or more stages […],
[…] further accessing one or more external systems which process the order, the one or more external systems accessed […], and […] identifies one or more events associated with the order based on data accessed at the one or more external systems, wherein […] obtains data concerning those one or more events from the one or more external systems and converts said data to a standardized format and stores the data in the standardized format in the storage
wherein the amount of time to complete the order is a maximum time for the order associated with the SLA and […] further determining from data in the standardized format associated with the one or more events when to start and stop the timer such that the timer tracks compliance with the maximum time required by the SLA associated with the order such that the SLA […] automatically starts and stops the timer, wherein the timer is stopped when the one or more events indicate the order is waiting on information from one or more users and the timer is started when the data related to the one or more events in the standardized format is updated to indicate the information from the one or more users is received.
The above limitations have a scope that includes a process that is used to track communications for a service level agreement compliance by receiving indication of an order, determining a maximum time for an order and data related to events of when to start and stop a timer that tracks compliance with the maximum time require by the service level agreement associated with the order, wherein the time is stopped when the waiting is waiting on information from a user and started when the data is received, and generating an audit log of when the timer was started and stopped. A Service Level Agreement is considered to be a legal obligation type of abstract idea where information is defined of how a provider agrees to provide contract services within a given timeframe and with a given quality from when requests are received. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea that is simply the act of providing information to a user upon request. This qualifies as a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. Accordingly, Claims 1, 7, and 14 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 7 and 14 recite the additional elements of a computer (Claims 1, 7, and 14), a network (Claims 1, 7, and 14), software (Claims 1, 7, and 14), and SLA engine (Claim 1, 7, and 14), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 7, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do 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 a computer (Claims 1, 7, and 14), a network (Claims 1, 7, and 14), software (Claims 1, 7, and 14), and SLA engine (Claim 1, 7, and 14), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 7, and 14 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-10, 13 and 17-19 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7 and 14 as discussed above. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) an audit log indicating a reason for the timer stopping and starting. Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) generating a communication for transmission to the user when the timer is stopped, and requesting information from the user, and recording portion of the communication in the audit log. Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) the amount of time remain in the timer being compared to an excepted amount of time to complete the order and an alert is generated if the compassion indicates a possibility of non-compliance. Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) determining from previous orders an expected amount of time for one or more stages of the order and based on the actual time for the one or more stages of the order, and updated the storage so the expected amount of time for one or more stages of a future order is determined based on the multiple previous order and the order. Claim(s) 6 merely describes the time remaining in the timer being compared to the expected amount of time for one or more stages of the order and generating an alert if the comparison indicates a possibility of non-compliance with the SLA. Claim(s) 8 merely describes determining the amount of time expected to remain for future orders based on the actual time of one or more past orders. Claim(s) 9 merely describes the actual time or one or more past orders being the amount of time to complete one or more stages of that order. Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) accessing a system which processes the order, and identifying an event with the order, and converting the data to a standardized format, and storing the data Claim(s) 17 merely describe(s) generating an audit log from the data in the standardized format indicating one or more reasons the timer stopped or started based on the one or more events. Claim(s) 13 & 18 merely describe(s) the audit log indicating one or more reasons for each time the timer stopped and started. Claim(s) 19 merely describe(s) modifying the order at the external system based on the alert to shorten an expected time for a next stage of the order.
Claims 3-6, 8, 10, 17, and 19 include the additional elements of a SLA engine, and network. The SLA engine, and network are analyzed in the same manner as the SLA engine, and network in the independent claim and do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Therefore claims 2-6, 8-10, 13, and 17-19 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
As previously disclosed in the Final Office Action on 05/29/2025, Independent Claim 1, Claim 7, and Claim 14, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-10, 13, and 17-19 were also allowable over the prior art due to their dependencies on claim 1, claim 7, and claim 14.
An updated search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 066 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant provides similarities between Claim 1 of the instant application, and Claim 1 of Patent Eligibility Guidelines Example 42. Claim 1 of Example 42 is shown to improve the art by allowing remote users to share real time information in standardized formats regardless of the input format of the file. In contrast, Claims 1, 7, and 14 are not standardizing different types of file formats into a consistent format, but rather standardizing generic data. The data being normalized and standardized in the current claims are displaying a way of formatting the data [Par. 0024], rather than the format of the file itself.
The Applicant further argues that the rejection fails to consider the ordered combination of elements in the claims as a whole because the Examiner has defined the abstract idea to encompass the entire claims and each element other than a computer and a storage. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented above, and previously, Under Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer, network, software, and SLA engine were previously found to be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) and thus does not provide a practical application or significantly more. The claim recites the desired result without specifying a technical improvement in how the computer accomplishes the start and stop of the timer, and audit log generation. There is no technical architecture that would amount to a practical application/significantly more, only high-level instructions to start and stop a timer, and provide reasons why the timer was altered in a report.
In regards to Claim 14, Applicant argues that claim includes additional features of a learning system that anticipates stages of completion and time for completion to avoid instances of SLA noncompliance, and includes features related to the Example 42, and Example 39. The Examiner refers to the response above in regards to Example 42. In regards to Example 39, the claims are related to software that employed a set of improved rules to automatically set facial animation “keyframes,” or select animation frames with specified attributes that allow the software to automatically draw intervening frames. The software removed the conventional need for an animator to manually set the keyframes, which the specification describes as tedious, time consuming, as well as inaccurate due to the large number of keyframes necessary to depict speech. The Federal Circuit explained that the claimed invention used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information into a specific format that could be used to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. For example, Claim 1 of McRO required that the rules be rendered in a specific way: as a relationship between sub-sequences of phonemes, timing, and the weight to which each phoneme is expressed visually at a particular timing (as represented by the morph weight set). The Court held that these specific features of the rules as claim limitations results in a claim that was specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. In contrast, there is nothing in the Specification or the current claims that is comparable to the specific rule of McRO. The Applicant’s claims describe tracking and avoiding penalties of a service level agreement on generic computer components using conventional computer activities. The claims do not improve any existing process such as animation characters. The claims are not directed to technological improvement. For the above reasons, the claims fail to qualify under the McRO standard.
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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights