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 .
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/24/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-57 based upon under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the last Office action because: mapping process (e.g. DAGs) can/would be practically generated by human engineer (Declaration para. 10; and Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0147]), and Declaration para. 12 and Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0146] also suggested that human engineer can/would perform mapping process.
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;
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, applicant’s declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed on 2/24/2026 (para. 7-12), 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 mental processing of human with/without assistance of pen and paper would be able to generate Figure 8 (e.g. DAG) in applicant’s Drawings for use.
Lastly, in accordance to MEPE 2106.04(a)(2)III, mental processing (thinking) that “can be performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper” is considered to be an abstract idea, and since applicant appears to suggest mapping process (e.g. DAGs) can be generated by human engineer (Declaration para. 10; Declaration para. 12; and Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0146]-[0147]), applicant’s claims are considered to be an abstract idea.
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 improve patch panel port mapping over conventional practice by improving the speed of mapping process and reducing error, synonymous to Memorandum to Patent Examining Corps, "Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations," December 3, 2025, "We specifically credited the claims for improving the function of the machine learning model itself, citing reduced storage requirements, lowered system complexity, and the prevention of "catastrophic forgetting." (Emphasis added)).
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and to further clarify, Desjardins, referenced by applicant, is directed towards improving the functioning of the machine learning model itself which reduces storage requirements, lowered system complexity, and preventing “catastrophic forgetting”. The examiner is currently uncertain how applicant’s claim is improving the functioning of the machine learning model itself or improving software’s logical structures and processes; therefore, the examiner is unable to properly respond to applicant remarks.
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 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 directed to machine learning, which 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. Furthermore, training neural network, similar to training machine learning models, are not directed to a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) Example vii); applicant's arguments have fully been considered, but are not found to be persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and to further clarify, some machine learning by itself could be considered mental process, and Example vii in MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) is directed to training a neural network for facial detection comprising: collecting a set of digital facial images, applying one or more transformations to the digital images, creating a first training set including the modified set of digital facial images; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set, creating a second training set including digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images in the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set. Applicant’s claimed training a machine learning model does not appear to be directed to training a neural network for facial detection comprising corresponding claimed steps.
In response to applicant’s arguments with regard to the dependent claims 53-57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 that the claims are not abstract because it cannot be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. it would be impractical for human beam to generate a DAG for each patch panel to map); applicant's arguments have fully been considered, but are not found to be persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and to further clarify, in accordance to MEPE 2106.04(a)(2)III, mental processing (thinking) that “can be performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper” is considered to be an abstract idea, and since applicant appears to suggest mapping process (e.g. DAGs) can be generated by human engineer (Declaration para. 10; Declaration para. 12; and Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0146]-[0147]), applicant’s claims are considered to be an abstract idea.
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 1-57 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 (e.g. mental processing for collecting information for analyzing);
accessing 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 a plurality of source port nodes corresponding respectively to (e.g. mental processing by human to draft directed acyclic graph with/without assistance of pen and paper: Drawings, Figure 8);
generating, based on the second set of information, a second directed acyclic graph representing, the second directed acyclic graph comprising a plurality of destination port nodes corresponding respectively to (e.g. mental processing by human to draft directed acyclic graph with/without assistance of pen and paper: Drawings, Figure 8);
wherein the first directed acyclic graph is agnostic to a layout and a navigation pattern of and the second directed acyclic graph is agnostic to a layout and a navigation pattern of (e.g. mental processing by human to draft directed acyclic graph with/without assistance of pen and paper: Drawings, Figure 8);
selecting a port assignment strategy from a plurality of port assignment strategies for mapping to; traversing, in accordance with the selected port assignment strategy, the first directed acyclic graph identify a first unassigned source port node and the second directed acyclic graph to identify a first unassigned destination port node; generating a mapping of the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes, wherein generating the mapping comprises: a) writing, to the first unassigned source port node, an identifier of the first unassigned destination port node, and b) writing, to the first unassigned destination port node, an identifier of the first unassigned source port node; and generating a representation of the mapping of the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes; based on the representation of the mapping of the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes (e.g. mental processing of human making a judgement through observing, evaluating and analyzing directed acyclic graph that was drafted by 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 first navigation path;
a plurality of destination ports in one or more destination patch panels associated with a second set of switches and a second navigation path;
a first source patch panel of the one or more source patch panels, the plurality of source ports in the first source patch panel;
a first destination patch panel of the one or more destination patch panels, 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 … the plurality of destination ports;
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.
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 first navigation path;
a plurality of destination ports in one or more destination patch panels associated with a second set of switches and a second navigation path;
a first source patch panel of the one or more source patch panels, the plurality of source ports in the first source patch panel;
a first destination patch panel of the one or more destination patch panels, 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 … the plurality of destination ports;
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,
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 “… traversing the first directed acyclic graph and the second directed acyclic graph comprises mapping the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes based on a) a first order for traversing the plurality of source port nodes using the selected port assignment strategy and b) a second order for traversing the plurality of destination port nodes using the selected port assignment strategy …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without 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 “… generating the first directed acyclic graph based on … defined for …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a navigation path … 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 “… receiving a source patch panel definition corresponding to … and a destination patch panel definition corresponding to … generating the first directed acyclic graph for … based on the source patch panel definition; and generating the second directed acyclic graph for … based on the destination patch panel definition …” can read on mental processing by a human to collect information/definition for drafting directed acyclic graph 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 dependent claim 38. Wherein “… wherein a patch panel definition for …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without 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 “… a root node corresponding to … a first number of sequentially connected shelf nodes connected to the root node, the first number corresponding to … for a respective shelf node: a second number of sequentially connected module nodes connected to the respective shelf node, the second number corresponding to corresponding to the shelf node; and for a respective module node: a third number of sequentially connected port nodes connected to the respective module node, the third number corresponding to … corresponding to the module node …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without 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 dependent claim 40. Wherein “… a last module node of a first shelf node is sequentially connected to a first module node of a second shelf node sequentially connected to the first shelf node; and wherein a last port node of a first module node is sequentially connected to a first port node of a second module node sequentially connected to the first module node …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without 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 “… accessing a third directed acyclic graph representing … the third directed acyclic graph comprising a plurality of destination port nodes corresponding respectively to … and traversing the first directed acyclic graph, the second directed acyclic graph, and the third directed acyclic graph in accordance with the selected port assignment strategy to generate a mapping of the plurality of source port nodes to the plurality of destination port nodes …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim 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 dependent claim 42. Wherein “… traversing the first directed acyclic graph, the second directed acyclic graph, and the third directed acyclic graph comprises: o) traversing the first directed acyclic graph to a first unassigned source port node corresponding to … p) traversing the second directed acyclic graph to a first unassigned destination port node corresponding to … q) mapping … to … r) traversing the first directed acyclic graph from the first source node to a next unassigned source port node; s) traversing the third directed acyclic graph to a second unassigned destination port node corresponding to … t) mapping … to … and u) repeating steps (a) to (f) until a final node in the first directed acyclic graph is reached …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim 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 … the first unassigned source port … a second unassigned destination port … the second unassigned destination port … 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 dependent claim 42. Wherein “… wherein traversing the first directed acyclic graph, the second directed acyclic graph, and the third directed acyclic graph comprises: q) traversing the first directed acyclic graph to an unassigned source port node corresponding to … r) traversing the second directed acyclic graph to an unassigned destination port node corresponding to … s) mapping … to … t) repeating steps (a) to (c) until all of … are mapped to … u) traversing the first directed acyclic graph to an unassigned source port node corresponding to … v) traversing the third directed acyclic graph to an unassigned destination port node corresponding to … w) mapping … to … and x) repeating steps (e) to (g) until a final node in the first directed acyclic graph is reached …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim 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 “… traversing the first directed acyclic graph and the second directed acyclic graph comprises: i) traversing the first directed acyclic graph to an unassigned source port node corresponding to … j) traversing the second directed acyclic graph to an unassigned destination port node corresponding to … k) mapping … to … and l) repeating steps (a) to (c) until there are no remaining … to map …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim 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 dependent claim 45. Wherein “… accessing a navigation path definition for … and traversing the first directed acyclic graph to an unassigned source port node according to the navigation path definition …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim 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 “… traversing the first directed acyclic graph and the second directed acyclic graph comprises: traversing the first directed acyclic graph to a first plurality of unassigned source port nodes corresponding to … traversing the second directed acyclic graph to a second plurality of unassigned destination port nodes corresponding to … and mapping … to …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim 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 “… the representation of the mapping comprises a table having a first plurality of cells that correspond to … and a second plurality of cells that correspond to … and wherein a cell value of a cell corresponding to … comprises a port identifier for … mapped to … and a cell value of a cell corresponding to … comprises a port identifier for … mapped to …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim 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 … a particular destination port … the particular source port … the particular destination port … 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 … a particular destination port … the particular source port … the particular destination port … 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 dependent claim 48. Wherein “… selecting a color from a set of unused table cell colors and applying the color to a cell corresponding to … and to a cell corresponding to …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without 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 “… a source directed acyclic graph corresponding to … a destination directed acyclic graph corresponding to … a mapping between … and a port assignment strategy applied to generate the mapping; … to select a port assignment strategy; … to select the port assignment strategy …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… accessing training data sets, a particular training data set of the training data sets comprising: … a source patch panel; … a destination patch panel; … the source patch panel and the destination patch panel; … training a machine learning model based on the training data sets … 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 “… accessing training data sets, a particular training data set of the training data sets comprising: … a source patch panel; … a destination patch panel; … the source patch panel and the destination patch panel; … training a machine learning model based on the training data sets … 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 dependent claim 50. Wherein “… the first set of information identifying … and to the second set of information identifying …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… wherein applying the machine learning model comprises applying the machine learning model to … 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 …” 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 “… wherein applying the machine learning model comprises applying the machine learning model to … 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 …” 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.
As per claim 52, dependent claim 52 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 18. Wherein “… wherein generating a destination port node comprises including a location identifier for … and wherein generating a source port node comprises including a location identifier for …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a corresponding destination port; and … a corresponding 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 52 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a corresponding destination port; and … a corresponding 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 53, dependent claim 53 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 18. Wherein “… identifying, based on … that a first port node in the first directed acyclic graph … and that a second port node, connected to the first port node … disconnecting the second port node from the first port node; and connecting the first port node to one of a third port node, a module node, or a shelf node based on …” can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a navigation path … is in a first navigation path … is in a second navigation path … the first navigation path …” 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 53 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a navigation path … is in a first navigation path … is in a second navigation path … the first navigation path …”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 54, dependent claim 54 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 18 which can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… wherein a number of source ports in the plurality of source ports differs from a number of destination ports in the plurality of destination 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 54 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… wherein a number of source ports in the plurality of source ports differs from a number of destination ports in the plurality of destination 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 55, dependent claim 55 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 18 which can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… the first navigation path differs from the second navigation path …” 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 55 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… the first navigation path differs from the second navigation path …” 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 56, dependent claim 56 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 18 which can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… the plurality of destination ports comprises a first set of destination ports associated with a first destination patch panel and a second set of destination ports associated with a 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 56 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… the plurality of destination ports comprises a first set of destination ports associated with a first destination patch panel and a second set of destination ports associated with a 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 57, dependent claim 57 further defined the abstract idea that is presented independent claim 18 which can read on mental processing by a human to perform the claim with/without pencil and paper (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES, the claim is abstract), and the addition of “… a source port is mapped to a plurality of destination 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 57 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the addition of “… a source port is mapped to a plurality of destination 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).
PERTINENT RELATED PRIOR ART
Ponamgi (US Pub.: 2016/0140259): discloses tool that is capable of generating logical connectivity diagrams, which map the topology onto racks, servers and switches, thereby revealing the full range of possible configurations.
II. 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
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.
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 September 04, 2026
Prosecution Insights