DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/24/2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with regard to the independent claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 that claim 1 is patent eligible under step 2A, Prong 1 as claim 1, as a whole, is not directed to a judicial exception because:
generating and using a particular data representation (i.e. DAG) improves a technological process of mapping;
generating and using of DAG does not automate conventional activity as human perform the task of port mapping without a DAG;
generating a DAG that represent a patch panel is not a process that can be done practically by a human with pencil and paper, because it would be impractical for a human being to generate a DAG for each patch panel to map;
traversing the DAGs that represent the one or more source patch panels and the one or more destination patch panels to generating a mapping between ports is also not a process that can be done practically by a human with pencil and paper;
a human engineer would not and does not create a DAG to represent a patch panel; and
generating DAGs for patch panels would add to the work and time already needed in human-based mapping processes; applicant's arguments have fully been considered, but are not found to be persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and to further clarify, in association with applicant’s clarification of the instant application as discussed in applicant’s remarks on pages 21-22, human engineer would have mental knowledge equivalent to DAG because human engineer generates mapping using their knowledge of layout, starting point, and navigation pattern between panels, while keeping track of specifications for the panels to avoid errors.
Furthermore, generating of DAG is additional work for the mapping process irrespective of whether it is generated via computer processing or human mental processing. And based on the examiner’s best understanding, an exemplary embodiment of DAG is shown in Figure 8 of applicant’s Drawings, and a human with/without assistance of pen and paper (mental processes) would be able to generate Figure 8 (e.g. DAG) in applicant’s Drawings for use (i.e. mental processing for generating and using DAG).
In response to applicant’s arguments with regard to the independent claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 that claim 1 is patent eligible under step 2A, Prong 2 as claim 1, as a whole, integrates any alleged judicial exception into practical application because claim 1 reflects the improvements by generating the DAGs to represent the patch panels in an agnostic manners and then using the DAGs to map patch panels ports; applicant's arguments have fully been considered, but are not found to be persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and to further clarify, in associated with the examiner’s above clarification, claim 1 is an abstract idea because human mental processing can generate and use DAG as shown in Figure 8 of applicant drawings. And the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality without any special hardware features; therefore, are an insignificant extra solution activity, and do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception.
In response to applicant’s arguments with regard to the independent claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 that claim 1 is patent eligible under step 2B because claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significant more than the judicial exception as claim 1 recites generating a DAG for a patch panel that is agnostic to the layout and navigation pattern of the patch panel and traversing the DAGs to map ports in one patch panel to ports in one or more other patch panels, which is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field of data center engineering; applicant's arguments have fully been considered, but are not found to be persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and to further clarify, in associated with the examiner’s above clarification, claim 1 is an abstract idea because human mental processing can generate and use DAG as shown in Figure 8 of applicant drawings. And the additional elements amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to the generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and conventional as there appears to have no specifical modification to the generic hardware/features/components.
In response to applicant’s arguments with regard to the dependent claims 16, 33 and 50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 that claim 16 is not directed to a mental process and the claimed machine learning is not a mathematical concept, fundamental economic practice, relationship or interaction between people, or a mental process as machine learning cannot be performed by the human mind and is technical in nature; applicant's arguments have fully been considered, but are not found to be persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and to further clarify, mental processing of collected information in relation to port assignment strategy to attain a mapping with/without pencil and paper is abstract. And the claimed machine learning with training and updating a machine learning model with feedback are additional elements that recited generic hardware/features/components are an insignificant extra solution activity, and do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception, and these claimed features amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to the generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and conventional as there appears to have no specifical modification to the generic hardware/features/components
I. REJECTIONS BASED ON 35 USC 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 1-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventio is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a low of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-51 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable media, a method, and a system, which are one of the statutory categories of inventions (Step 1: YES).
The system of claim 35 will be the claim that represent the claimed invention for 101 analysis as non-transitory computer readable media of independent claim 1 and method of claim 18 recited mirroring claimed features of independent claim 35.
The following claimed limitations of Claim 35, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processing of information as following:
accessing a first set of information identifying and a second set of information identifying (e.g. mental processing for collecting information for analyzing);
generating, based on the first set of information, a first directed acyclic graph representing, the first directed acyclic graph comprising (e.g. mental processing by a human, with/without assistance of pen and paper, to draft directed acyclic graph: Drawings, Figure 8);
generating, based on the second set of information, a second directed acyclic graph representing, the second directed acyclic graph comprising (e.g. mental processing by human, with/without assistance of pen and paper, to draft directed acyclic graph: Drawings, Figure 8);
wherein the first directed acyclic graph is agnostic to a layout and a navigation pattern and the second directed acyclic graph is agnostic to a layout and a navigation pattern (e.g. mental processing wherein by human, with/without assistance of pen and paper, to draft directed acyclic graph: Drawings, Figure 8):
selecting a port assignment strategy from a plurality of port assignment strategies for mapping; and traversing the first directed acyclic graph and the second directed acyclic graph in accordance with the selected port assignment strategy to generate a mapping: the mapping (e.g. mental processing of human making a judgement by evaluating options associated with the directed acyclic graph that was drafted by a human with/without assistance of pen and paper: Drawings, Figure 8). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claims are abstract)
Under the Alice framework Step 2A-Prong 2 analysis, claim 35 recites the following additional elements:
at least one device including a hardware processor;
the system being configured to perform operations comprising:
a plurality of source ports in one or more source patch panels associated with a first set of switches and a plurality of destination ports in one or more destination patch panels associated with a second set of switches;
a first source patch panel of the one or more source patch panels, a plurality of source port nodes corresponding respectively to the plurality of source ports in the first source patch panel;
a first destination patch panel of the one or more destination patch panels, a plurality of destination port nodes corresponding respectively to the plurality of destination ports in the first destination patch panel;
the first source patch panel and the first destination patch panel:
the plurality of source ports to the plurality of destination ports; and
the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes, wherein:
connecting the plurality of source ports in the one or more source patch panels and the plurality of destination ports in the one or more destination patch panels based on the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes.
However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality without any special hardware features. Therefore, the recited generic hardware/features/components are an insignificant extra solution activity, and do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO, the claim does not recite additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with regard to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the further recitation of the following elements:
at least one device including a hardware processor;
the system being configured to perform operations comprising:
a plurality of source ports in one or more source patch panels associated with a first set of switches and a plurality of destination ports in one or more destination patch panels associated with a second set of switches;
a first source patch panel of the one or more source patch panels, a plurality of source port nodes corresponding respectively to the plurality of source ports in the first source patch panel;
a first destination patch panel of the one or more destination patch panels, a plurality of destination port nodes corresponding respectively to the plurality of destination ports in the first destination patch panel;
the first source patch panel and the first destination patch panel:
the plurality of source ports to the plurality of destination ports; and
the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes, wherein:
connecting the plurality of source ports in the one or more source patch panels and the plurality of destination ports in the one or more destination patch panels based on the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes,
amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to the generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and conventional as there appears to have no specifical modification to the generic hardware/features/components; therefore, the device does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO, the claim do not provide significant more).
As per claim 36, dependent claim 36 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 36 can read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and there is no additional claim elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO and Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 37, dependent claim 37 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 37 can read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… the first source patch panel …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 37 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… the first source patch panel …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 38, dependent claim 38 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 38 can read on mental processing of collected information/definition with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… the first source patch panel … the first destination patch panel… the first source patch panel … the first destination patch panel …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 38 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… the first source patch panel … the first destination patch panel… the first source patch panel … the first destination patch panel …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 39, dependent claim 39 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 38. Wherein dependent claim 39 can read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a patch panel includes a number of shelves in the patch panel, a number of modules per shelf in the patch panel, and a number of ports per module in the patch panel …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 39 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a patch panel includes a number of shelves in the patch panel, a number of modules per shelf in the patch panel, and a number of ports per module in the patch panel …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 40, dependent claim 40 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 40 can read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a rack … a number of shelves in the rack … a number of modules on a shelf … a number of ports in a module …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 40 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a rack … a number of shelves in the rack … a number of modules on a shelf … a number of ports in a module …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 41, dependent claim 41 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 40. Wherein dependent claim 41 can read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and there is no additional claim elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO and Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 42, dependent claim 42 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 42 can read on mental processing of collected information in relation to the selected port assignment strategy to attain a mapping with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a second destination patch panel of the one or more destination patch panels … the plurality of destination ports in the second destination patch panel …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 42 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a second destination patch panel of the one or more destination patch panels … the plurality of destination ports in the second destination patch panel …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 43, dependent claim 43 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 42. Wherein dependent claim 43 can read on mental processing of collected information to attain a mapping with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a first unassigned source port … a first unassigned destination port … the first unassigned destination port … the first unassigned source port … a second unassigned destination port … the second unassigned destination port … the next unassigned source port …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 43 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a first unassigned source port … a first unassigned destination port … the first unassigned destination port to the first unassigned source port … a second unassigned destination port … the second unassigned destination port to the next unassigned source port …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 44, dependent claim 44 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 42. Wherein dependent claim 44 can read on mental processing of collected information to attain a mapping with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… an unassigned source port in the first source patch panel … an unassigned destination port in the first destination patch panel … the unassigned destination port … the unassigned source port … the destination ports in the first destination patch panel … a source port … an unassigned source port in the first source patch panel … an unassigned destination port in the second destination patch panel … the unassigned destination port in the second destination patch panel … the unassigned source port …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 44 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… an unassigned source port in the first source patch panel … an unassigned destination port in the first destination patch panel … the unassigned destination port … the unassigned source port … the destination ports in the first destination patch panel … a source port … an unassigned source port in the first source patch panel … an unassigned destination port in the second destination patch panel … the unassigned destination port in the second destination patch panel … the unassigned source port …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 45, dependent claim 45 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 45 can read on mental processing of collected information to attain a mapping with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… an unassigned source port in the first source patch panel … an unassigned destination port in the first destination patch panel … the unassigned destination port … the unassigned source port … source ports …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 45 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… an unassigned source port in the first source patch panel … an unassigned destination port in the first destination patch panel … the unassigned destination port … the unassigned source port … source ports …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 46, dependent claim 46 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 45. Wherein dependent claim 46 can read on mental processing of collected information/definition with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… the first source patch panel …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 46 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… the first source patch panel …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 47, dependent claim 47 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 47 can read on mental processing of collected information to attain a mapping with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a first plurality of unassigned source ports in the first source patch panel … a second plurality of unassigned destination ports in the first destination patch panel … the unassigned destination ports in the second plurality of unassigned destination ports … respective individual unassigned source ports in the first plurality of unassigned source ports …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 47 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a first plurality of unassigned source ports in the first source patch panel … a second plurality of unassigned destination ports in the first destination patch panel … the unassigned destination ports in the second plurality of unassigned destination ports … respective individual unassigned source ports in the first plurality of unassigned source ports …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 48, dependent claim 48 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 48 can read on mental processing of collected information to attain a mapping with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… respective ports in the first source patch panel … respective ports in the first destination patch panel … a particular source port comprises a port identifier for a particular destination port … the particular source port … the particular destination port comprises a port identifier for the particular source port … the particular destination port …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 48 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… respective ports in the first source patch panel … respective ports in the first destination patch panel … a particular source port comprises a port identifier for a particular destination port … the particular source port … the particular destination port comprises a port identifier for the particular source port … the particular destination port …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 49, dependent claim 49 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 48. Wherein dependent claim 49 can read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… the particular source port … the particular destination port …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 49 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… the particular source port … the particular destination port …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 50, dependent claim 50 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 35. Wherein dependent claim 50 can read on mental processing of collected information in relation to port assignment strategy to attain a mapping with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a source patch panel … a destination patch panel … the source patch panel and the destination patch panel … training a machine learning model … obtaining feedback on an accuracy of the trained machine learning model; updating a set of training data based on the feedback; updating the trained machine learning model based on the updated set of training data; and applying the machine learning model ...” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 50 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a source patch panel … a destination patch panel … the source patch panel and the destination patch panel … training a machine learning model … obtaining feedback on an accuracy of the trained machine learning model; updating a set of training data based on the feedback; updating the trained machine learning model based on the updated set of training data; and applying the machine learning model ...” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claim 51, dependent claim 51 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 50. Wherein dependent claim 51 can read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… the plurality of source ports in the one or more source patch panels … the plurality of destination ports in the one or more destination patch panels …” are generic hardware/features/components and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, as it essentially add the words “apply it” (or equivalent) to the judicial exception (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). Lastly, dependent claim 51 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… the plurality of source ports in the one or more source patch panels … the plurality of destination ports in the one or more destination patch panels …” amount to no more than applying the judicial exception to generic hardware/features/components that is well-understood, routine, and convention; therefore, the system does not appear to include an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
As per claims 1-17, claims 1-17 are rejected in accordance to the same rational and reasoning as the above rejection of claims 35-51.
As per claims 18-34, claims 18-34 are rejected in accordance to the same rational and reasoning as the above rejection of claims 35-51.
II. PERTINENT RELATED PRIOR ART
Brooks et al. (US Pub.: 2017/0293545): discloses a generated topology may be in the form of a map or tree structure of interconnected nodes, where each node is a structure that describes or defines a component and/or sub-components.
III. CLOSING COMMENTS
CONCLUSION
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i):
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-51 have received a first action on the merits and are subject of a first action non-final.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN KUAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
IMPORTANT NOTE
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached on (571) 270-1023. 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.
/CHUN KUAN LEE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2181 March 27, 2026