DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed December 26, 2025. Applicant’s amendment amended claims 1, 16, 19 and 20. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are the independent claims.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea – the claims cannot be performed in human mind (i.e. not directed to a mental process; human cannot operate a communication network thus cannot transmit instructions to a network component to process data traffic; Remarks: Paragraphs 1-2, Page 8); the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. configuring a communication to process data traffic, transmitting instructions, not organizing human activity, not economic practice; Remarks: Page 9); the claims represents an improvement in the field of communication network operations (e.g. manual allocation of communication/network elements may result in shortages, congestion, bottlenecks, etc.; resource reclamation/subscriber service rehoming may be reduced in context of AI/ML forecasting; more efficient utilization of network resources; Specification: Paragraphs 12, 15; Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 10; Paragraph 1, Page 11).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., resource reclamation, subscriber service rehoming, load balancing, AI/ML based forecasting and unique matching algorithm; AI/ML forecasting - Last Paragraph, Page 10) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Should Applicant amend the claims to positively and more specifically recite the use of ML/AI, as argued, examiner suggest Applicant review recent Appeals Review Panel review of Ex parte Desjardins et al., related to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/319,040, assigned to DeepMind Technologies Limited, the recently posted 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-15377/guidance-2024-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence ) and specifically review the three new examples 47-49 announced by the 2024 AI SME Update which provide exemplary SME analyses under 35 U.S.C. 101 of hypothetical claims related to AI inventions (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf), as well as MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (i.e. not a mental process, not an economic activity, etc.), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of network management/planning, more specifically the claims transmit an instruction to a network component of a communication network to process data traffic of a first customer via one of a plurality of network resources of a selected resource type based on a customer segment, allocation matching scheme and predicted customer order weights. Network management is a fundamental economic practice wherein the recite processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor are merely conduits/tools for the abstract idea.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of communications management – specifically configuring network components to process customer traffic data, the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g. no technical problem related to managing a communication network or allocating customer traffic data has been identified much alone claimed); improve any of the underlying technology; or improve another technical field.
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of segregating a plurality of customers into segments in accordance to at least one factor may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement. The step of generating a plurality of predicted customer order weights by customer segment with at least a first forecasting model may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement and is also directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of calculating a plurality of inventory demand weights for a plurality of network resources types with at least a second forecasting model may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement and is also directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of obtaining a new customer order for the first resource type may be performed in the human mind by observation. The step of configuring the communication network to process data traffic comprising transmitting an instruction to a network component may be performed in the human mind and/or pen and paper by judgement and opinion (e.g. a person can manually transmit-send-enter configuration commands/data into a network component).
Other than the recitation of a computer readable medium storing instructions, hardware device including a processor, database, communication network, sensors, control devices and display device nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, generic communications network and generic network components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor (each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of network management. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of obtaining a new customer order and transmitting an instrucion which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data over a network which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims improve the technical field of communication network operations, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially it is noted that many, if not all, of the argued improvements (e.g. ML/AI, rehoming, etc.) are not actually recited in the currently pending claims – see discussion above.
Further it is noted that many of the argued ‘improvements’ represent improvements in the abstract idea itself and do not represent a technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks, do not improve the underlying technology (e.g. network equipment, processor, etc.) and do not improve another technical field.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – network management – in this case transmitting an instruction to a network component to process data traffic of a first customer via one of a plurality of network resources of a first selected resource type. It is noted that the final configuration step comprising transmitting instructions is merely insignificant post-solution activity. Instructions are only transmitted. The transmitted instructions MAY or MAY NOT actually be received by the network component. The transmitted instructions MAY or MAY NOT actually be executed/performed by the network component. If Applicant, where to amend the claims to positively recite that the transmitted instructions are actually received and executed, the step would represent a mere application of the abstract idea. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of allocation of network components/resources based on forecasted demand and customer weights (i.e. old, well-known, conventional and routine network management, provisioning, etc.) they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (improve a technology or technical field). At best the claims recite automation of a well-known manual process by which a human (e.g. network engineer) configures a network to handle customer data traffic. (Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 10).
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the customer (who is a person) and the generic processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of processing and transmitting data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s network resource allocation/configuration in the general field of network management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology 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, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with 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 (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particul ar technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea are the customer and processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 12, this paragraph discloses that the invention is directed to configuration a communication network to process data traffic of a first customer based on a customer segment and allocation scheme in according with predicted customer order weights and inventory demand weights for network resources. Further this paragraph discloses the use of AI/ML for capacity planning and provisioning providing insights into future network demand as well as load balancing – none of which are recited in the pending claims. Additionally, these unclaimed features merely represent wished for ‘benefits’ without how discussion at any level as to how these outcomes are actually achieved. Mere results-based description of the invention.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 15, this paragraph discloses that improved insight and ordering patterns MAY enable a network operator (a business, person) to more efficiently plan communication network buildout and resource procurement – none of which is claimed and further which supports examiner’s position that the disclosed invention is at best a tool to assist a human user/business plan/manage a communication network. Additionally, this paragraph lists a plurality of wished for ‘benefits’ (load balancing, proper distribution of circuits, etc.) that are not positively recited in the pending claims. Further this paragraph fails to disclose HOW these wished for outcomes/results are actually achieved.
These paragraphs, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. processor, network component, communication network, etc.), does not disclose an improvement in another technical field, not does not disclose providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., computer, display) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a “processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor,” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Appellant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 19, and 20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of network management. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, network management (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to providing a predictive user interface to enable a person to select, configure, train and run a predictive trait model, wherein network management is a fundamental economic practice. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Further all of the steps of “segregating”, “generating”, “calculating”, “obtaining”, and “configuring…transmitting” recite functions of the network management are also directed to an abstract idea. The steps of generating a plurality of predicted customer weights and calculating a plurality of inventory demand weights because they are a mathematical concept. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 19 and 20 appears to be to transmit instructions to configure (provision, allocate, assign, distribute, etc.) communication network resources based on customer segment allocation matching scheme based on predicted customer order weights and inventory demand weights.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice. The exceptions are the customer and the generic computer elements: processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor. These generic computing components are merely used to process or transmit data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 6). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's traffic allocation in the general field of network management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of segregating a plurality of customers of a communication network, generating a plurality of predicted customer order weights, calculating a plurality of inventory demand weights, and configuring (e.g. provision, deploy, assign, allocate, etc.) the communication network to process traffic data all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps obtaining a new customer order is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of transmitting an instruction to a network component is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). It is noted that the claims do not positively recite that the instructions are received or executed by the network component as claimed. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology 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, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with 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 (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the obtaining step that was considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-18, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of network management and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 19, and 20.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by segregating customers by customer intensity values (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by calculating customer intensity value based upon counts of a number of network services utilized (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by segregating customers according with distribution values of at least one customer factor (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by training the first forecasting model with historical order data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by basing the order weights on an order count for the first network resource by a subset of the customers of a particular segment (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by basing the predicted order weights on an order count for a network resource category (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the forecasting model to a time series forecasting model (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the first forecasting model to a first gradient boosted machine (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the second forecasting model to a time series forecasting model (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the second forecasting model to a gradient boosting machine (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by training the second forecasting model using historical allocations of network resources (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the allocations to a plurality of customer segments (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by training the second forecasting model with historical utilization measures (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the utilization measures across a plurality of customer segments (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 16 further limits the abstract idea by including in the second forecasting model one of the plurality of network resources including a plurality of input factors of network types (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 17 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the network resource types to physical or virtual or network interface (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 18 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the first network resource type to hardware or network path capacity (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processor at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 6). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processing system, apparatus, communication network, computer readable storage medium storing instructions, network component and processors merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 6). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raleigh, U.S. Patent Publication No,. 20100192212 discloses a system and method for communication network management/planning including automated provisioning.
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 SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625