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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application filed on May 10th, 2024, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 10, and 16 are presented in independent form.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on March 9th, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. The complied IDS have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Allowable Subject Matter
The combination of claims 4+5+6+7+8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 10-15 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; and Claims 16-20 are directed to tangible computer-readable medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1: it recites the limitations of “
constructing a graph structure representative of a firmware upgrade to be applied to a computing system, the graph structure comprising nodes representative of tasks associated with the firmware upgrade and edges connecting respective pairs of the nodes, the edges being representative of dependencies between respective ones of the tasks corresponding to the pairs of the nodes;
generating task time data representative of respective first estimated time durations of the tasks; and
generating, as a function of the task time data and based on a selected path formed by the nodes and the edges of the graph structure, a second estimated time duration associated with applying the firmware upgrade to the computing system.”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step (a) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” “graph structure,” “firmware upgrade” and “computing system,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (b) and (c) are merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the generating of the task time data is based on system configuration data representative of a hardware configuration of the computing system” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the computing system is a first computing system, and wherein the generating of the task time data is based on historical data representative of past time durations of the respective ones of the tasks on second computing systems” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the computing system is associated with a telecommunications system deployment” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 10: it recites the limitations of “
constructing, by a first system comprising at least one processor, a graph structure representative of a firmware upgrade to be performed on a second system, the graph structure comprising nodes representative of upgrade operations associated with the firmware upgrade and edges connecting respective pairs of the nodes, the edges being representative of dependencies between respective ones of the upgrade operations corresponding to the pairs of the nodes;
estimating, by the first system, respective first time durations of the upgrade operations, resulting in estimated operation durations; and
generating, by the first system and as a function of the estimated operation durations and based on a selected path formed by the nodes and the edges of the graph structure, an estimated second time duration for execution of the firmware upgrade on the second system.”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step (a) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 10: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “at least one processor,” “graph structure,” “firmware upgrade” “first system,” and “second system,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (b) and (c) are merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 10 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 10: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 10 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the estimating of the estimated operation durations is based on supplemental data of at least one data type selected from a group comprising: a system configuration type corresponding to system configuration data representative of a hardware configuration of the second system, and a historical type corresponding to historical data representative of past time durations associated with performance of the upgrade operations on third systems” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 11 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 16: it recites the limitations of “
constructing a graph structure representative of a firmware upgrade to be applied to a telecommunication system, the graph structure comprising nodes representative of tasks associated with the firmware upgrade and edges connecting respective pairs of the nodes, the edges being representative of dependencies between respective ones of the tasks corresponding to the pairs of the nodes;
generating task duration data representative of estimated first time durations of the tasks; and
generating, as a function of the task duration data and based on a selected path through the graph structure, an estimated second time duration of applying the firmware upgrade to the telecommunication system.”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step (a) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions,” “at least one processor,” “graph structure,” “firmware upgrade” and “telecommunication system,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (b) and (c) are merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 16 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 16: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the telecommunication system is a first telecommunication system, and wherein the generating of the task duration data is based on data of at least one data type selected from a group comprising: a system configuration type corresponding to system configuration data representative of a configuration of the telecommunication system, and a historical type corresponding to historical data representative of past time durations of the tasks associated with the firmware upgrade on second telecommunication systems” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 17 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su et al. (Patent No. 11,474,803) discloses generating a dynamic upgrade prediction. The prediction includes generating an initial upgrade prediction for an upgrade to be performed on a subset of component nodes; performing a real time progress review, using a centralized management node, of the upgrade, wherein each of the component nodes includes a number of stages; performing an upgrade duration comparison between the initial upgrade prediction and a real time upgrade time for a subset of the stages; and generating an updated upgrade prediction for the multi-component product upgrade based on the comparison between the initial upgrade prediction and the real time upgrade time.
Kalaskar et al. discloses automating the prediction of maintenance windows in datacenter environments. A user input can be received specifying a start time for a maintenance window. A first amount of time for a host machine to enter a maintenance mode at the start time for the maintenance window is estimated. Then, a second amount of time to update a software component installed on the host machine is estimated. A third amount of time for the host to update a storage cache to match a respective data store can also be estimated. A maintenance window length can then be predicted that comprises a sum of the first amount of time, the second amount of time, and third amount of time. The maintenance window length can then be rendered within a user interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 June 24th, 2026
Prosecution Insights