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 Non-Final Office Action. Claims 1, 7, and 14 have been amended. Claims 11-12, and 15-16 were previously canceled. Claims 1-10, 13-14 and 18-19 are currently pending.
Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Application 18/324,076 filed 05/25/2023 claims priority to provisional application 63/349,806 filed 06/07/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, and 7 Paragraph 6 "and the when the time was started snd stopped", should be "and when the timer was started and stopped".
Claim 14, Paragraph 9 recites “data in the standardized format associated”, and should recite “data in the standardized format associated with”,
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 13, and 17 recite the limitations "claim 12" and “claim 16”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12, and 16 were canceled.
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 12 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant cites the specification on pages 9-11 of the Remarks explaining a problem where various third party telecom related systems provide information in their own formats in which it provides for incoherent information where compliance with the SLA cannot be tracked. Applicant further argues on page 11 that the specification provides an explanation of the problem in the art in that there are several different telecom systems involved if one were to want to track and adhere to a SLA, but the data in each system is stored in a different way or possibly stored in the same way but has an entirely different meaning in terms of how that data is applied to the SLA. Therefore, the specification explains the problem of multiple systems with incoherent data, and the solution of normalizing the data and using it to track SLA compliance. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In view of the rejection above, the claims recite the management of personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people and/or commercial or legal interactions because the claim language encapsulates the scope of mere instructions, or rules to perform the functions. Furthermore, other than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, the claims are not necessarily limited to “a data format associated with the one or more external systems” as suggested. These alleged improvements are not technological improvements (improvements to the functioning of a computer) because they are merely abstract idea improvements being instructed to be performed on generic computing device. MPEP 2106.05(a) sates, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Because the modules are interpreted as data conversion performed on the generic computing infrastructures in the specification, the modules are not improvements to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05(f)). MPEP 2106.05(f) also states, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more." Therefore, the collection of data, processing of data, computation of data, and outputting of data, as stated by the applicant is merely invoking the use of computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Applicant refers to the Patent Eligibility Guidelines, Example 42. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are analogous to Example 42. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. Example 42 is an illustration of this. Example 42 describes a technical problem (i.e., a problem caused by the technology. The claimed invention then solved this problem (a technical solution) by storing information in a standardized format, providing remote access over a network so any user can update the record in real time through the interface, where the information is in a non- standardized format, converting the non-standardized format into a standardized format, storing the standardized updated information, and transmitting a notification to all the users in real time so each user has access to the information, thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Unlike Example the Applicant's argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the general-purpose computer to which the invention is claimed. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s argument that the claim addresses the problem of connecting seemingly incoherent data to establish one coherent system, however, the Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the generic computing component that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. At best, Applicant's identified problem is a business / administrative problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application. The claimed additional elements go beyond the abstract idea, unlike the instant application. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogues to U.S. Patent 10,574,677. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. U.S. Patent 10,574,677 was not found to be directed towards an abstract idea because the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Therefore, this argument in unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that the rejections fails to consider the ordered combination of elements in the claims as a whole, and by combining the elements as claims, provides the ability to give a verifiable audit of actions taken and timeframes thereof along with the reasons the timer was paused and/or why the SLA was complied with. 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 in addition to features related to the standardized format, the claim includes machine learning, therefore providing eligibility based on both PEG 39 and 42. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above Example 42 provided a technical solution to a technical problem. Unlike Example the Applicant's argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the general-purpose computer to which the invention is claimed. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s argument that the claim addresses the problem of providing for a learning system that anticipates stages of completion and time for completion to avoid instance of SLA noncompliance, however, the Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the generic computing component that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. The additional elements of an SLA engine, computer, storage, network, software are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or another technology. It is also noted that the claimed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to determine when the timer is started and stopped, but rather use that technology as a tool to perform the abstract analysis. Therefore the claims do not recite significantly more. The claim does not recite any technical improvement in the SLA engine, storage, network, software or computer operations and perform the abstract concept of tracking and avoiding penalties of a service level agreement. In regards to Example 39, a determination must be made as to the focus of the claim(s) and whether the claim(s) are drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology whether it be to the operation of a computer or a computer network per se or a set of rules that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. In other words, the claims simply require the performance of the abstract idea of tracking and avoiding penalties of a service level agreement on generic computer components using conventional computer activities and unlike McRO, they are not drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology. At best, Applicant's identified problem is a business / administrative problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Conclusion
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