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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 05, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/491,730, filed on October 20, 2023. In response to Examiner's Final Office Action dated December 10, 2025, Applicant on February 04, 2026, amended claims 1, 7 and 14. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 1-20 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants arguments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments to claims 1, 7 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed February 04, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed February 04, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant submits that the claims cannot be properly interpreted as being directed to the abstract idea of a mental process because the claim elements cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
In performing its Step 2A, Prong One analysis wholly fails to consider Applicant's claim element of "automatically controlling the network element without human intervention to perform remedial action selected based on the alarm." This claim element is incapable of practical performance in the human mind because a human is incapable of performing an action that specifically requires no human intervention. The USPTO has recognized that claim elements that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not recite a mental process. See, e.g., Example 39 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas ("... the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind."). Because the instant claims include control of an electronic device automatically and without human intervention, these features are incapable of performance in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.
Applicant further notes the Final Office Action's statement that Applicant's claimed "automatically controlling the network element without human intervention to perform remedial action selected based on the alarm[] is not currently not tied to a specific additional element (e.g., computer component) responsible for carrying out the aforementioned function" and that Applicant is encouraged "to amend the claims to include the additional elements performing this action." Final Office Action at p. 4. Applicant respectfully submits that whether the claim element is or is not tied to a specific additional element responsible for carrying out the function is immaterial because the claim feature itself is an additional element which is incapable of performance in the human mind. Nonetheless, in the interest of advancing prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims as suggested by the Final Office Action.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 39 improves the computer technology for identifying human faces in digital images, which is not similar to the present invention. Specifically, unlike Example 39 that was found to improve the training process of a neural network, the present invention generates and manages incident reports based on alarms triggered during a maintenance interval without reflecting an improvement to the technologies being used to implement the instructions of the abstract. Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), which explains claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Additionally, Examiner finds the amended limitation (i.e., automatically controlling the network element without human intervention to perform remedial action selected based on the alarm) is merely the automation of human actions using generic computer components (i.e., the computer system) to apply the instructions (i.e., wherein the remedial action is selected by querying the database of common alarm identifiers using the alarm identifier to identify the remedial action as one of the pre-configured remedial actions associated with the alarm identifier) of the abstract idea. As described in the Advisory Action, Examiner notes claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Examiner maintains the claim recite and abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant notes the Final Office Action's statement at page 3 that "the present invention generates and manages incident reports based on alarms triggered during a maintenance interval without reflecting an improvement to the technologies being used to implement the instructions of the abstract" and submits that the Office's position in unsupported by the evidence of record. Particularly, Applicant's Specification describes the existing technical problems and the improvements brought about by Applicant's claimed embodiments in at least paragraphs [0004], [0017]-[0039], [0043], [0046]-[0050], [0060], and more (see p. 21, Applicant Remarks).
Thus, Applicant submits that any assertion that the claimed embodiments do not reflect an improvement to computer technology would be inconsistent with a plain language reading of the teachings of Applicant's disclosure as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response, Examiner finds paragraphs [0004]; [0017]-[0039]; [0043], [0046]-[0050]; [0060] are directed to improvements to an existing business process (e.g. maintenance management and generating incident reports) that is not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment, thus failing to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner finds the claims generate incident reports responsive to failures of automatic remedial actions for maintenance alarms without Applicant identifying any limitations in the claimed invention that show or submit that the technology used is being improved or there was a problem in or with the technology that the claimed invention solves.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states based on this described improvement, Applicant reminds the Office that claims affecting an improvement to a computer or other technology or technical field are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather integrate any allegedly recited abstract idea into a practical application of such abstract idea and are patent eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO, Inc. v. BandaiNamco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Against the above backdrop, Applicant respectfully submits that when evaluating Applicant's claims as a whole, the improvement described in Applicant's Specification is made clear. Further, Applicant notes that the Office is cautioned against evaluating claims at a high level of generality when the claims are adequately described and otherwise nonobvious, as well as the fact that "§§ 102, 103 and 112 are the traditional and appropriate tools to limit patent protection to its proper scope" and "should be the focus of examination." Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision). In addition, Applicant notes that the USPTO has specifically stated that improvements in data sets and structures can constitute patent-eligible technological advancements under the Alice framework. See John Squires, Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (Dec. 4, 2025), https://www. uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/smeds-corps. pdf.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Applicant’s citation from the Analysis Section of the abovementioned proceedings is directly related to the claims at issue in that respective case. Although the New Ground of Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was overturned, the Board did not disturb the standing rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant is respectfully reminded novelty and non-obviousness over the prior art, have no bearing on whether a claim recites or is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Examiner finds the present claims are not comparable to the technical improvements disclosed in Enfish and/or McRO. In regards to Enfish, the claims assert improvements in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database, which achieves benefits over conventional databases). Enfish disclosed sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. In regards to McRO, the claims demonstrated improvements to a specific technological process (i.e., lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions), thus improving computer animation without requiring an artist's constant intermediation with significant support in the specification. Examiner finds Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem— managing maintenance events—rather than a technological one. Examiner maintains the additional elements as currently claimed are used as generic tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea, which does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f), requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are directed towards a method and claims 7-13 are directed towards a system, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 14 recite generating incident reports based on alarms triggered during a maintenance interval and claim 7 recites generating and managing incident reports based on alarms triggered during a maintenance interval.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, obtaining the alarm created during a maintenance interval associated with the maintenance event, wherein the maintenance interval is a preset period of time during which the maintenance event is to be performed on a network element, wherein the alarm comprises an alarm identifier; responsive to the failure of the automatic remedial action to remediate the alarm: determining whether multiple alarms from multiple different network elements are active after respective maintenance intervals have expired, the multiple alarms including the alarm; responsive to the multiple alarms from multiple different network elements being active after respective maintenance intervals have expired: correlating the multiple alarms as a large-scale event when a number of the multiple alarms that are active is greater than a threshold number of alarms from different network elements; responsive to the multiple alarms being correlated as a large- scale event, generating an incident report for the multiple alarms, wherein the incident report is a single incident report that includes an indication that the incident is part of a large-scale event; responsive to the multiple alarms from multiple different network elements not being active after respective maintenance intervals have expired or the multiple alarms not being correlated as a large-scale event; adding the maintenance identifier to the alarm; and generating the incident report based on the alarm constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of an incident management application executing on a computer system in the communication system, maintenance device of the maintenance technician, and an incident report application does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 14 recites mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 7 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, obtain an alarm created during a maintenance interval associated with a maintenance event, wherein the maintenance interval is a preset period of time during which the maintenance event is to be performed on a network element, wherein the alarm comprises an alarm identifier; indicate, in the alarm, that incident report creation is to be suppressed for this alarm during the maintenance interval; determine that the alarm is still active after the maintenance interval has expired; and wherein responsive to failure of the automatic remedial action to remediate the alarm: determine whether multiple alarms from multiple different network elements are active after respective maintenance intervals have expired, the multiple alarms including the alarm; responsive to the multiple alarms from multiple different network elements being active after respective maintenance intervals have expired: correlate the multiple alarms as a large-scale event when a number of the multiple alarms that are active is greater than a threshold number of alarms from different network elements; responsive to the multiple alarms being correlated as a large- scale event, generate an incident report for the multiple alarms, wherein the incident report is a single incident report that includes an indication that the incident is part of a large-scale event; responsive to the multiple alarms from multiple different network elements not being active after respective maintenance intervals have expired or the multiple alarms not being correlated as a large-scale event; add a maintenance identifier to the alarm, wherein the maintenance identifier identifies the maintenance event; generate the incident report based on the alarm; receive an indication from the maintenance device to extend the maintenance interval; and close the incident report when the maintenance interval has been extended constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a communication system comprising a radio access network, an incident management application executing on a first computer system, maintenance device of the maintenance technician and an incident reporting application that executes on a second computer system does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites maintaining, in a data store of the communication system, a maintenance identifier identifying the maintenance event and an identity of a maintenance technician responsible for performing the maintenance event, wherein the identity of the maintenance technician comprises a method of communicating with a maintenance device of the maintenance technician; a database of common alarm identifiers, each common alarm identifier associated with one or more pre-configured remedial actions; and transmitting, by the incident reporting application, a notification associated with incident report directly to the maintenance technician via the method of communicating with the maintenance device, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites an incident management application executing on a computer system in the communication system, maintenance device of the maintenance technician and an incident report application at a high-level of generality, as well as, automatically controlling, by the computer system, the network element without human intervention to perform remedial action selected based on the alarm, wherein the remedial action is selected by querying the database of common alarm identifiers using the alarm identifier to identify the remedial action as one of the pre-configured remedial actions associated with the alarm identifier. These elements are recited in such a way that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and merely confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The incident management application and an incident reporting application executed on a computer system and maintenance device associated with a maintenance technician in claim 14 also amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claim 14 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 7 recites transmit a notification associated with incident report directly to a maintenance device associated with a maintenance technician responsible for performing the maintenance event, wherein the notification requests the maintenance technician to indicate whether to extend the maintenance interval, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 7 recites a communication system comprising a communication system comprising a radio access network, an incident management application executing on a first computer system, maintenance device of the maintenance technician and an incident reporting application at a high-level of generality, as well as, automatically control, by the first computer system, the network element without human intervention to perform remedial action selected based on the alarm, wherein the remedial action is selected by querying a database that comprises common alarm identifiers each associated with one or more pre-configured remedial actions, the querying using the alarm identifier to identify the remedial action as one of the pre-configured remedial actions associated with the alarm identifier. These elements are recited in such a way that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and merely confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 7 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including the communication system comprising a communication system comprising a radio access network, the incident management application executing on a computer system in the communication system, the maintenance device of the maintenance technician and the incident reporting application amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claim 11 recites after the incident report is generated, the incident reporting application is configured to search a record, at a data store, for a maintenance history for the network element, wherein the maintenance history indicates that the maintenance interval has been extended after the incident report is generated and claim 13 recites the maintenance identifier is stored at a data store in association with maintenance data describing the maintenance event and a method of communicating with the maintenance device, both of which are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Additionally, claims 2-6, 8-10, 12 and 15-20 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claim 1. Therefore claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Distinguishable over the Prior Art of Record
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed in light of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed February 04, 2026, in particular pg. 18-20 regarding the prior art of record. Examiner analyzed amended claims 1, 7 and 14 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kuperman et al. (US 20220198322 A1) teaches techniques for auto-remediating security issues with artificial intelligence. Specifically, the security architecture may support a network behavior anomaly detector that is subscribed to the netflow signal and adapted to detect anomalous behavior within the netflow signal indicative of a problem and a configuration drift detector that is subscribed to the configuration signal and adapted to detect anomalous behavior within the configuration signal indicative of a problem. The detectors use heuristics, machine learning, or some combination of heuristics and machine learning techniques to detect anomalous behavior and derive the problems from the signals (see par. 0032). The monitor/analyzer will monitor output of the discriminator, and when in testing mode, provide the final inferred response to a user for evaluation of accuracy or automatically evaluate the accuracy of the final inferred response. If the final inferred response is determined by the new user and/or the monitor/analyzer to be accurate with respect to preferences of the new user, the response recommender initiates the generation of a label for the problem that includes the final inferred response. The problem and associated label are stored in both the global repository and local repository for positive reinforcement training of both models. If the final inferred response is determined by the new user and/or the monitor/analyzer to be inaccurate with respect to preferences of the new user, the new user and/or the monitor/analyzer will provide the correct or groundtruth response, and the response recommender initiates the generation of a label that includes the correct or groundtruth response for the problem. The problem and associated label are stored in the local repository for corrective training of the local model (see par. 0047-0048).
However, Kuperman, individually or in combination with the prior art of record, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claims 7 and 14 are distinguishable over the prior art for similar reasons as cited for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are distinguishable because they depend on claims 1, 7 and 14 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gartland et al. (US 20050075748 A1) – Implement rigorous system-wide automatic solutions to help resolve many error conditions and other problems or issues in an automated manufacturing facility that are susceptible to automatic recovery or other automatic resolution, even across the normal boundaries separating the various automated systems.
Ulema (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance of Critical Communications Systems) - This chapter provides a discussion on the operations, administration, and maintenance of critical communications systems. It provides a short introduction to the field and focuses only on its application to critical communications systems. An operations plan describes the supports systems, capital and human resources, organizations, responsibilities, policies, and operation procedures required to monitor and manage the network efficiently. Operations support systems (OSSs) must support standard open interfaces and multivendor and multi‐technology solutions and applications, and have real‐time performance data processing and intelligent troubleshooting capabilities to resolve network‐related issues promptly. The area of fault management includes the prevention, detection, and correction of faults. The functional area of accounting management is responsible for measuring the use of services in the network and determining the amount of money the user needs to pay for this usage. Identity management requires even more strict rules and procedures in critical communication systems using LTE technology.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights