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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
1. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
2. Claim 1 recites “said interface software automatically interfaces with each output system such that each of the output systems is compatible with the input change such that information from the input system subject to the input change is converted by the interface software to be compatible with each output system…”
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “interfaces” in Claim 1 is used by the claim to mean ”modify” or “program,” while the accepted meaning is “communicatively connect with.”
The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Because the claim is not redefined, the breadth of “interfaces” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the interfacing is a triggering action that leads to the result described in the claims or if the interfacing comprises the programming itself that the claims describe.
Claims 2-19 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted steps are: the steps following the interfacing of the interface software that results with each output system such that each of the output systems is compatible with the input change such that information from the input system subject to the input change is converted by the interface software to be compatible with each output system.
The omission of these steps leaves the claim unclear as to how the interfacing software “interfaces” with each system, as interfacing at face value would not necessarily result in the system as disclosed, and therefore results in the claim as being indefinite.
Claims 2-19 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kauffman et al. (US 20220232130 A1).
Claim 1 Kauffman teaches a system for multiple input and output system interfacing for telecommunications services and devices comprising:
a computer having interface software executing thereon (Kauffman, FIG. 1, Telecom Expense Management System 1000, ¶0046, software executing on a computer) which is in communication with software of a plurality of input systems which input systems each relate to a telecommunications expense management (TEM) system (FIG. 1, Devices 102, ¶0052, wherein the computer is in communication with input systems, i.e. devices 102, relating to Telecom Expense Management System 1000) and which is in communication with software of a plurality of output systems which output systems each relate to a telecommunications service provider system; (FIG. 2, Carrier Systems 1060, ¶0046, the computer is in communication with a plurality of output systems relating to telecommunications service provider system, i.e. Telecom Expense Management System 1000)
the software of each input system provides access to a TEM computer which provides user access for procuring telecommunications devices and telecommunications service plans; (FIG. 1, ¶0052, providing access to TEM 1000)
the software of each output system is interfaced with a telecommunications service provider computer which fulfills telecommunications device and/or service orders; (FIG. 2, ¶0046, interfaced with TEM 1000)
wherein upon modification of the interface software with an input change for the input system due to a change to the software of one or more of the input systems, (FIG. 3, Step 2010, ¶0113, wherein there is an identified plan change, wherein the plan change comprises an input change in the input system due to changing the software) said interface software automatically interfaces with each output system such that each of the output systems is compatible with the input change such that information from the input system subject to the input change is converted by the interface software to be compatible with each output system; (FIG. 3, ¶0113, reconciling input and output systems to be compatible) and wherein upon modification of the interface software with an output change due to a change to the software of one or more of the output systems, (FIG. 3, Step 2010, ¶0113, wherein there is an identified plan change, wherein the plan change comprises an output change in the input system due to changing the software) said interface software automatically interfaces with each input system such that the input system is compatible with the output change such that information from the output system subject to the output change is converted by the interface software to be compatible with each input system. (FIG. 3, ¶0113, reconciling input and output systems to be compatible)
Claim 2 Kauffman teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the input change allows the service provider computers to communicate with the TEM computer in a form matched to that TEM computer. (Kauffman, FIG. 2, ¶0046, Examiner notes that “allows” can be interpreted broadly such that the basic connectivity between computers is sufficient to show the allowance of communication)
Claim 3 Kauffman teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the input change allows the service provider computers to communicate with the TEM computer in a form matched to that TEM computer. (Kauffman, FIG. 2, ¶0046, Examiner notes that “allows” can be interpreted broadly such that the basic connectivity between computers is sufficient to show the allowance of communication)
Claim 4 Kauffman teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the information from the input system is indicative of a telecommunications device or service order. (Kauffman, ¶0051, the information can be orders for equipment or options, i.e. service orders)
Claim 5 Kauffman teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the information from the output system is indicative of a confirmation for a telecommunications device or service order. (Kauffman, ¶0051, the information can be regarding orders made for equipment or options, i.e. service orders)
Claim 6 Kauffman teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the information from the input system is indicative of request to modify a telecommunications service plan. (Kauffman, ¶0113, wherein there is an identified plan change)
Claim 7 Kauffman teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the interface software is configured to access a mapping storage having mapping data which mapping data indicates how data received from each input system is correlated to data to be sent to each output system. (Kauffman, FIG. 2, ¶0110, wherein the system has access to customer specific customizable rules, i.e. mapping data, that tells how received data is to be sent carriers)
Claim 8 Kauffman teaches Claim 7, and further teaches wherein the input change results in a modification to the mapping data. (Kauffman, FIG. 3, Step 2010, ¶0113, wherein change results in a modification to the rules 1120
Claim 9 Kauffman teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the interface software further comprises messaging software which provides a status queue and order queue for statuses and orders which are to be sent to the corresponding one(s) of the plurality of input and output systems, the messaging software correlating the received statuses and orders to the appropriate component of the interface software. (Kauffman, ¶0018, wherein the TEM provides updates, orders or changes, i.e. a status and order queue, to be set to corresponding systems)
Claim 10 is taught by Kauffman as described for Claim 1.
Claims 11-12 are taught by Kauffman as described for Claims 3-4.
Claims 13-14 are taught by Kauffman as described for Claims 7-8.
Claim 15 is taught by Kauffman as described for Claim 1.
Claims 16-17 are taught by Kauffman as described for Claims 3-4.
Claims 18-19 are taught by Kauffman as described for Claims 7-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
eBonding Deployment & Configuration Guide (AVI-SPL, 2020-2022) – Discusses “ebonding” in particular how it provides “ provides an automatic, synchronized exchange of data” (page 4) as described by the claims
AT&T eBonding An easier way to send orders and trouble tickets electronically (AT&T, 2010) – Similarly discusses the ebonding capability
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights