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 .
The following is a final office action in response to communications received 11/25/2025. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-12 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and response to the claims are sufficient to overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous office action. Examiner withdraws the claim interpretation for claim 10 based on the amended claim. The amendments and response to the claims are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Examiner withdraws the rejections for claims 1, 10, 11, 12 under 35 USC 103.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 recite in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1-12 recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1-12 are not patent eligible.
Claims 1-12 recite in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite in part:
monitoring, with the computing system, a trigger frequency at which a process of the plurality of processes is activated due to receipt of data within a preset duration;
adjusting, with the computing system, a current trust value corresponding to the process based on the trigger frequency, wherein the current trust value is used to represent a degree of trustworthiness when the process is currently in a normal state; and
managing, with the computing system, the state of the process based on the adjusted the current trust value.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – the computing system. The computing system is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-12 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to processing load and processing performance of the system.
Celozzi et al (Pub. No. US 2024/0056810); “Trust Level in Network Slices”;
-Teaches the corresponding slice management entity comprises a first module configured to periodically determine a trust level of the network slice based on time-dependent trust values of the network components used by the network slice…see par. 37.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499