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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 07/12/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 14-15, 18 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14 of Applicant’s Response filed 07/12/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 10, that the newly added limitations preclude characterization of such as abstract ideas since they recite steps which cannot be performed mentally. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes, as outlined below, that a human could indeed monitor data to determine the occurrence of a crisis. The requirement to do so by monitoring a network amounts to the generic computer implementation of such a step, or the mere requirement to apply the abstract idea using network monitoring. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “continuously” monitoring a network amounts to the mere requirement to increase the speed of the monitoring using the capabilities of a general purpose computer, and therefore, this limitation does not amount to a technical improvement or practical application of the abstract ideas. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 10, that the use of an O1 interface amounts to the use of a specific network element through a specific standardized user interface architecture and executing a crisis simulation on a specific network architecture (an OSS) cannot be performed mentally, and therefore the claims cannot be said to recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined below, the use of the O1 interface and the OSS amount to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract ideas of gathering network data and executing a crisis simulation using these elements. The monitoring of data could be performed mentally, as can the execution of a crisis simulation. The mere requirement to apply these abstract ideas using these elements does not direct the claims to patent eligible subject matter. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 12-13, that the use of the O1 interface and the OSS bring forth a technical improvement to network management technology itself by allowing concurrent monitoring and simulation while preventing actual outages or disruptions to the live mobile network by preventing the simulation from propagating to the physical network layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that, at the current level of breadth, such a technical solution is not necessarily brought about by the claims. No physical network layer is recited. Furthermore, the claims merely recite a crisis simulator, the receipt of information over an O1 interface, and the execution of a crisis on an OSS. The claims do not require that each element is separate. Rather, at the current level of breadth, the crisis simulator could encompass both the O1 interface itself as well as the OSS. No specific offloading of the crisis simulation to a separate device which necessarily prevents a simulation from propagating to a physical network layer and prevents outages and disruptions is recited by the claim. Therefore, since broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not bring forth a technical improvement and still encompasses ineligible subject matter, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-14, that the use of an O1 interface precludes an assertion by Examiner that the claims merely speed up the process of monitoring data and performing simulations using the capabilities of a general purpose computer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined below, the use of the O1 interface and the OSS amount to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract ideas of gathering network data and executing a crisis simulation using these elements. The monitoring of data could be performed mentally, as can the execution of a crisis simulation. The mere requirement to apply these abstract ideas using these elements does not direct the claims to patent eligible subject matter. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims add elements not found in the art, and therefore, the claims add something other than that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional to the claims. Examiner respectfully notes that made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. MPEP 2106.05(I) Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 8, and 15, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
entering data. . . to define a crisis simulation; (claims 1, 8, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could enter this data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of managing relationships among people and rule following, since the presentation of crisis notifications and the management thereof based on whether the crisis is a real crisis or not amounts to managing interactions among people and following of rules)
continuously monitoring, by the Crisis Simulator, real-time network data received from network elements of the mobile network over an 01 interface to determine occurrence of a crisis; (claims 1, 8, 15; regarding the monitoring of data to determine occurrences of a crisis, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could monitor information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; please see step 2A part II below regarding the use of the crisis simulator and the monitoring of a mobile network continuously to perform this step)
using the real-time network data received from the network elements over the 01 interface to initiate execution of the defined crisis simulation. . . while continuing to monitor the real-time network data received from the network elements over the 01 interface for occurrence of a real crisis (claims 1, 8, 15; regarding the monitoring of data to determine occurrences of a crisis, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could initiate the execution of a crisis simulation and monitor real-time network data for occurrence of a real crisis. Examiner respectfully notes that the mere requirement to implement these two steps simultaneously which could each be performed by a human amounts to the mere requirement to use the capabilities of a general purpose computer to perform separate abstract idea steps simultaneously; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; please see step 2A part II below regarding the use of the crisis simulator and the monitoring of a mobile network continuously to perform this step)
receiving. . . a crisis notification associated with the real-time network data received from the network elements over the O1 interface; (claims 1, 8, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a crisis notification based on this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of managing relationships among people and rule following, since the receipt of crisis notifications amounts to managing interactions among people and following of rules)
accessing. . . network information including crisis validity information to determine whether the crisis notification is a fake crisis notification associated with the crisis simulation; (claims 1, 8, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could access this information to determine whether a crisis is real or not; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of managing relationships among people and rule following, since the accessing of information to determine veracity of a crisis amounts to managing interactions among people and following of rules)
based on the accessed crisis validity information, determining. . . whether the crisis is the real crisis in the network elements being monitored (claims 1, 8, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of managing relationships among people and rule following, since the presentation of crisis notifications and the management thereof based on whether the crisis is a real crisis or not amounts to managing interactions among people and following of rules)
and in response to the crisis notification being determined to be a real crisis notification, generating. . . a crisis notification of a real crisis to present on the display for a manager of the mobile network of the real crisis, ending the crisis simulation, and presenting a crises response for addressing the real crisis; (claims 1, 8, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a notification for display to a manager in response to this determination, end a crisis simulation, and present a crisis response; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of managing relationships among people and rule following, since the presentation of crisis notifications and the management thereof based on whether the crisis is a real crisis or not amounts to managing interactions among people and following of rules)
or in response to the crisis notification being determined to be the fake crisis notification associated with the crisis simulation, generating. . . a crisis notification of a fake crisis to present on the display for the manager of the mobile network and initiating a drill according to a predetermined protocol to address the crisis simulation. (claims 1, 8, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could notify a manager in response to this determination alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of managing relationships among people and rule following, since the presentation of crisis notifications and the management thereof based on whether the crisis is a real crisis or not amounts to managing interactions among people and following of rules)
and in response to the receiving the crisis validity information indicating the crisis notification is the real crisis, generating an alert of the real crisis to present. . . for a manager of the mobile network that the crisis notification is associated with the real crisis , ending the crisis simulation, and presenting a crisis response for addressing the real crisis; (claim 8; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a notification for display to a manager in response to this determination, end a crisis simulation, and present a crisis response; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of managing relationships among people and rule following, since the presentation of crisis notifications and the management thereof based on whether the crisis is a real crisis or not amounts to managing interactions among people and following of rules)
or in response to the receiving the crisis validity information indicating the crisis notification is associated with the crisis simulation, generating an alert of a fake crisis associated with the crisis simulation to present. . . and initiating a drill according to a predetermined protocol to address the crisis simulation. (claim 8: the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide an alert to a manager in response to this determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of managing relationships among people and rule following, since the presentation of crisis notifications and the management thereof based on whether the crisis is a real crisis or not amounts to managing interactions among people and following of rules)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
via a User Interface (UI) presented on a display of a Crisis Simulator (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . received from network elements of the mobile network over an 01 interface. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; finally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using an 01 interface since the interface is recited at a high level of generality, merely acts as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea of gathering data, and since the claim recites the outcome of using the 01 interface without reciting how the outcome is brought about)
. . . on an Operations Support System (OSS) of the mobile network. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; finally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using an OSS of a mobile network since the OSS is recited at a high level of generality, merely acts as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea of processing data, and since the claim recites the outcome of using the OSS without reciting how the outcome is brought about)
. . . on the display of the Crisis Simulator. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . on the network sites of the mobile network. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . by the Crisis Simulator. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a user interface (UI) presented on a display for presenting a crisis notification associated with a mobile network; (claim 8; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a communications interface, coupled to the UI, for accessing network information to determine whether the crisis notification is a fake crisis notification associated with a crisis simulation; (claim 8; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
wherein the communication interface is configured to send. . . to network sites (claim 8; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by a processor causes the processor to perform operations comprising: (claim 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
continuously monitoring, by the Crisis Simulator, a mobile network by pulling data from the mobile network to determine occurrence of a crisis; (claims 1, 8, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that “continuous monitoring” of a mobile network by pulling data amounts to the mere requirement to speed up the abstract idea of monitoring data do detect a crisis using the capabilities of a general purpose computer. Please see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and 2106.05(f)(2) each indicating that merely accelerating abstract ideas when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 10, 14-17, and 20-23, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2, 9, and 16:
wherein the initiating the drill according to the predetermined protocol to address the crisis simulation includes initiating the drill according to the predetermined protocol that is based on a type of Business, local laws and regulations, and company policy on BCP and compliance.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could initiate a drill according to this type of protocol; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers.
Claims 3, 10, and 17:
wherein the entering the data in the UI to define the crisis simulation includes at least one of entering data in a crisis simulation definition UI to define a type of crisis and an impact of the crisis, entering data in a geography UI to define geographic constraints of the crisis simulation, and entering data in a business impact UI to identify a minimum and maximum number of users impacted by the crisis simulation, a minimum and maximum number of VIP customers impacted by the crisis simulation, a minimum and maximum number of network sites or devices impacted by the crisis simulation, or a minimum and maximum number of critical or major network sites impacted by the crisis simulation.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could enter this type of information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers.
Claims 4, 11, and 18:
wherein the receiving the data to define the crisis simulation includes fetching a list of network sites in a defined geography from an Inventory Manager, fetching from a Performance Monitor an impacted users estimate count for the list of the network sites, creating a list of combinations of the network sites, impacted users, identification of whether the crisis simulation impacts critical or major network sites, and a number of VIP customers impacted by the crisis simulation.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could fetch these two lists and create a list of combinations; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers.
Claims 5, 12, and 19:
selecting one of the combinations and generating the crisis notification of the crisis simulation using the one of the combinations selected, wherein the selecting one of the combinations is an automated random selection of the one of the combinations or a selection of the one of the combinations selected by the manager of the mobile network.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a combination and generate a notification in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers.
Claims 6 and 13:
continuing to monitor the mobile network for the crisis notification of the real crisis after the initiating the drill.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could continue to monitor a network for a notification of a real crisis; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers.
Claims 7, 14, and 20:
in response to receiving the crisis notification of the real crisis after initiating the drill, saving a drill report;
or in response to not receiving the crisis notification of the real crisis after initiating the drill, completing the drill and saving the drill report;
wherein the drill report includes at least one of a start time and an end time of the crisis simulation, a response time of a team responding to the crisis simulation, a completion time of the team completing analysis of network sites impacted by the crisis simulation, a response time of completing a report by the team, or a dispatch time identifying how quickly the team was dispatched to address the crisis simulation.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of the stop, save, complete, and save steps; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial network service companies would perform this step in providing network services for their customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 10, 14-17, and 20-23, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights