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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment received on 01/06/2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1-30 have been canceled.
Claims 31-60 have been added.
Claims 31-60 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 18-20 of 24), that Applicant further submits that new claims 31-60 are patent eligible as being both drawn to a technological solution to an industry need, and also for demonstrating a patent eligible inventive concept according to the Federal Circuit holding in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As described in the present specification, telecommunication service providers typically face limited geographic coverage, and therefore, to provide world-wide end-to-end connectivity services for their users, must distribute the connectivity services across several different service provider geographic areas. This challenge is particularly pervasive for businesses having multiple locations in different cities or continents. (See e.g., specification paragraphs [0004]-[0005]). Whereas some service providers may have established pricing and quoting arrangements with geographically adjacent service providers, such is typically not the case with non-adjacent service providers, where connectivity services must be provided through intervening service providers… Systems and methods according to the present claims solve this problem by providing a quoting node for each of the distributed service providers that may directly communicate, using a unique inter-node communication protocol, with interconnected quoting nodes of adjacent provider networks that are chained to the service provider of the originating quoting node. The originating service provider, for example, may be chained to an adjacent partner provider, but might not be chained to a separate downstream provider network that is chained to its adjacent partner provider. In this manner, each provider may have its own quoting node configured to initiate its own recursive quoting process/sub-process to its own downstream adjacent providers. A traversal control algorithm and hop counter control the depth of the recursive quoting process to avoid loops and prevent potentially endless traversals across all possible distributed segment paths outside of the control of the originating quoting node. Accordingly, an end-to-end recursive quoting process may be accomplished automatically in minutes, as opposed to days or weeks that are typically required conventionally, which thereby reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer-based quoting system, where the claims integrate the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application (i.e., automated recursive quoting process/system) and thus impose meaningful limits (e.g., inter-node communication protocol for the recursive quote, geographically adjacent networks chained together) on the alleged exception. Claims 31-60 are therefore eligible at Step 2A, Prong One as "directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision, citing Enfish and McRO); see also December 5, 2025 USPTO Advance Notice Memo.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, Applicant appears to be describing or referencing a business solution to a business problem by using the traversal control algorithm and hop counter control to implement the abstract idea. The traversal algorithm and hop counter also appears to work as it normally would and does not provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. Secondly, unlike Bascom, which claimed a “technology based solution”, Applicant has presented an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components (traversal control algorithm and hop counter control). The claims as amended appears to provide an improvement or business solution to a business problem. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 20-21 of 24), that although no further analysis should be required, Applicant further submits that the present claims are also eligible at Prong Two as being comparable to the inventive concept shown in BASCOM. As discussed in the December 18, 2025 telephone interview, the present systems and methods enable adjacent chained provider networks to communicate directly between their respective business layers (i.e., using the inter-node communication protocol of the interconnected quoting nodes) over a data communication network/Internet separate from the chained service provider network infrastructures, as shown below in the exemplary illustrative drawing depicting adjacent provider networks chained together at the networking layer… Applicant submits that the Examiner may see that this technological solution - namely, separating the inter-node communications from the chaining/interconnection of the adjacent providers-demonstrates an inventive concept comparable to the inventive concept in BASCOM, where the implementation of a filtering tool a new specific location represented a technological improvement over conventional systems. In the present case, the interconnection of adjacent quoting nodes using a new inter-node communication protocol improves the automated quoting process by "filtering" quotes between chained providers at the business layer, as opposed the chained network layer. Further "filtering" capabilities are enabled by maintain anonymity of downstream provider information from upstream requesting devices, nodes, or providers.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that again, Applicant appears to be describing or referencing a business solution to a business problem by using the traversal control algorithm and hop counter control to implement the abstract idea. The traversal algorithm and hop counter also appears to work as it normally would and does not provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. Further, unlike Bascom, which claimed a “technology based solution”, Applicant has presented an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components (traversal control algorithm and hop counter control). The claims as amended appears to provide an improvement or business solution to a business problem. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 21 of 24), that the Examiner may further note that the claims do not merely recite "two or more service provider networks" (Office Action, page 8), but instead meaningfully limit the technological operation of the invention to series of chained and unchained provider networks using a depth controlling hop counter. Additionally, a traversal control algorithm manages operation between nodes, whereas a separate and distinct quoting service algorithm assembles quotes or sub-quotes within a particular quoting node.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant should show a teaching in the specification on how the invention improves a technology or establishes a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification support the asserted technical improvement. For instance, separating the inter-node communications from the chaining/interconnection of the adjacent providers is not a technical solution to technical a problem, but is instead, a business solution to business problem by using generic tools (e.g. computing device) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 19-24, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or the rejection of claims 7, 9, 12, 16-18, 25, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-30. Further, with respect to new claims 31-60, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “126” has been used to designate “one virtual provider,” “first partner provider,” “the partner service provider,” and “first partner” in [0050]-[0051]; reference character “136” has been used to designate “a second virtual partner provider,” “second partner provider,” “the second partner service provider,” and “second partner” in [0052]-[0056]); and reference character “146” has been used to designate “a third virtual partner provider,” “third partner provider,” “the third partner service provider,” “third network provider,” and “third partner” in [0055]-[0056]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31-58 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites the language ”a downstream second connectivity service quote request message,” “a downstream third connectivity service quote request message,” ”an upstream first connectivity response message,” and “an upstream second connectivity response message including the aggregated second quote portion”;
Claims 32 recites the language ”a downstream second connectivity service quote request message,” “a downstream third connectivity service quote request message,” “an upstream second connectivity response message including the aggregated second quote portion”;
Claim 33 recites the language “the downstream third connectivity service quote request message” and “the upstream first connectivity response”;
Claim 34 recites the language “a downstream subprocess of the upstream recursive quoting process,” “an upstream quoting node,” “an upstream recursive quoting process,” and “the upstream quoting node”;
Claim 39 recites the language “a downstream second connectivity service quote request message to a particular respective second quoting node”;
Claim 40 recites the language “a downstream third connectivity service quote request message to a third quoting node“;
Claim 41 recites “the downstream third connectivity service quote request message”;
Claim 42 recites “the first downstream second connectivity service quote request message”;
Claim 43 recites “the downstream second connectivity service quote request message to a group of second service provider networks”;
Claim 49 recites “the downstream third connectivity service quote request message”; “a first downstream quote request message,” “the first downstream quote request message to at least one downstream first partner quoting node,” “at least one downstream first partner quoting node,” “a downstream second partner quoting node,” and “the downstream second partner provider network.”
Claim 53 recites “the at least one downstream first partner quoting node includes a plurality of downstream first partner quoting nodes” and “the first downstream quote request message to one or more of the plurality of downstream first partner quoting nodes”;
Claim 54 recites “the first downstream quote request message”;
Claim 56 recites “the at least one downstream first partner quoting node from the plurality of downstream first partner quoting nodes”;
Claim 58 recites “a downstream quoting node with respect to the upstream quoting node” and “the requesting party device is an upstream quoting node”; and
Claim 60 recites “the second quoting node operates as a downstream quoting node with respect to the first quoting node.”
Paragraphs [0041]-[0046] discloses a first partner 26 and/or the second partner 36 and/or the third partner 46. Paragraphs [0050] discloses a first partner 126. However, the Examiner is unable to determine from the Specification-as -originally- filed, what is meant by “a first downstream quote request message,” “the first downstream quote request message to at least one downstream first partner quoting node,” “at least one downstream first partner quoting node,” “a downstream second partner quoting node,” “the downstream second partner provider network,” “an upstream first connectivity response message,” “an upstream second connectivity response message,” “an upstream recursive quoting process,” and any other reference to an downstream or an upstream. Therefore, appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 31-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the electronic communication medium" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the system network layer" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the requesting party device" in lines 83 and 86, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the requesting party device" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the requesting party device" in line 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 32-48 depend from indefinite claim 31 and incorporates claim 31's indefiniteness issue via that dependency. Claims 32-48 do not remedy the indefiniteness issue and are therefore, indefinite for that reason.
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 31-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 31-60 recite a method for combining service offerings from two or more service provider networks. Claims 31-48 are directed to first quoting node of a system (i.e., a machine). Claims 49-58 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 59-60 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 31-60 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claim 31 substantially recites:
receive a first connectivity service quote request message for a set of connectivity services [ ];
identify, from the received first connectivity service quote request message, a first service segment of the set of connectivity services that may be provided [ ] within the first geographic region;
assemble, according to a quote assembly algorithm, a first quote portion for providing the first service segment [ ];
determine a second service segment of the set of connectivity services, different from the first service segment, that is not available from the first service provider network and/or within the first geographic region;
select, according to a traversal control algorithm, the plurality of geographically distributed service providers that are (i) remote from the first service provider, (ii) configured to provide second connectivity services within respective second geographic regions different from and geographically adjacent to the first geographic region, and (iii) chained together with the first service provider;
transmit, a downstream second connectivity service quote request message over the data communication network to respective second quoting nodes of the number of second service provider networks (i) for the second service segment, (ii) using the inter-node communication protocol, and (iii) according to the traversal control algorithm;
assemble an initial second quote portion for providing a first subsegment of the second service segment that may be provided from the respective second service provider chained with the adjacent first service provider;
transmit a downstream third connectivity service quote request message to a third service provider network to provide third connectivity services within a third geographic region adjacent to the second geographic region but not adjacent to the first geographic region, (ii) chained with the respective second service provider but not chained with the first service provider, and (iii) for a second subsegment of the second service segment different from the first subsegment;
receive an upstream first connectivity response message including a third quote portion for providing the second subsegment;
automatically assemble, according to the quote assembly algorithm, the third quote portion with the initial second quote portion to generate an aggregated second quote portion for connectivity services; and
transmit an upstream second connectivity response message including the aggregated second quote portion;
select from among one or more received upstream second connectivity response messages, the aggregated second quote portion;
assemble according to the quote assembly algorithm, the first quote portion with the aggregated second quote portion to generate a combined quote for connectivity services;
transmit, to the requesting party, a third connectivity response message including the combined quote for connectivity services; and
enable the requesting party to select the combined quote for the requested end-to-end connectivity services. The aforementioned limitations may be interpreted as at least as a Mental Process (e.g. concepts performed in the human mind) which includes observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions and/or “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and/or “Commercial Interactions” which includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed by the human mind (identify, determine), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receive, identify, assemble, determine, select, transmit, enable, assemble, transmit, receive, assemble, transmit, select, assemble, transmit, and enable) and commercial interactions (receive, identify, assemble, determine, select, transmit, enable, assemble, transmit, receive, assemble, transmit, select, assemble, transmit, and enable).
Independent claim 49 substantially recites:
receiving, from a requesting party, a quote request for the end-to-end connectivity service between at least two geographically separated locations not chained to one another;
determining a local service segment of the end-to-end connectivity service from the quote request that may be provided by a service provider;
generating, for a remaining service segment from the quote request different from the local service segment, a first downstream quote request message including (a) a list of service items, and (b) a first hop counter value;
transmitting the first downstream quote request message to at least one downstream first partner quoting node that is (a) associated with a first partner provider (i) chained with the service provider, (ii) capable of providing at least a portion of the end-to-end connectivity service for the remaining service segment, and (iii) responsible for connectivity services within a first geographic region adjacent to a local geographic region covered by the service provider; receiving a first partner quote from the at least one downstream first partner;
aggregating the first partner quote with a locally generated quote for the local service segment to produce a consolidated quote for the end-to-end connectivity service requested in the quote request; and
electronically returning the consolidated quote to the requesting party device, wherein the first partner quote response includes distributed quote information from a downstream second partner of a second partner provider (i) chained with the at least one first partner provider but not chained with the service provider, and (ii) geographically adjacent to the at least one first partner provider but not geographically adjacent to the service provider, and wherein the consolidated quote is assembled such that anonymity of the downstream second partner provider network is maintained with respect to the requesting party device. The aforementioned limitations may be interpreted as at least as a Mental Process (e.g. concepts performed in the human mind) which includes observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions and/or “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and/or “Commercial Interactions” which includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed by the human mind (determining), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, determining, generating, transmitting, receiving, aggregating, and returning) and commercial interactions (receiving, determining, generating, transmitting, receiving, aggregating, and returning).
Independent claim 59 substantially recites:
receive from a requesting entity, a first quote request for the end-to-end connectivity services;
determine a first portion of the connectivity services that can be provided within a first service provider;
select at least one geographically adjacent second service provider (i) that is chained with the first service provider, and (ii) capable of supplying a remainder portion of the requested end-to- end connectivity services;
transmit a second quote request to at least one geographically adjacent second service provider;
receive at least one first quote response for the remainder portion of the connectivity services;
automatically combine the at least one first quote response with an assembled quote for the first portion to generate a combined quote for the connectivity services; and
send the combined quote, wherein the at least one quote response includes distributed quote information of a third service provider (i) chained with the second service provider but not chained with the first service provider, and (ii) geographically adjacent to the second service provider but not geographically adjacent to the first service provider, and wherein the combined quote is assembled such that anonymity of the third service provider is maintained with respect to the requesting entity. The aforementioned limitations may be interpreted as at least as a Mental Process (e.g. concepts performed in the human mind) which includes observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions and/or “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and/or “Commercial Interactions” which includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed by the human mind (determine), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receive, determine, select, transmit, receive, combine, and send) and commercial interactions (receive, determine, select, transmit, receive, combine, and send).
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 32 recites the additional elements (e.g. “a first quoting node,” “a system,” “a plurality of quoting nodes,” “a data communication network,” “a data interface,” “electronic communication medium,” “a first service provider network,” “a processor,” “a memory device,” “computer-executable instructions,” “a requesting electronic device,” “an inter-node communication protocol,” “a quote assembly algorithm,” “a traversal control algorithm,” “a number of second service provider networks,” “an inter-node communication protocol,” “at least one second quoting node,” “a third quoting node,” and “a third service provider network” and “the requesting party device”); claim 49 recites the additional element (e.g. “a quoting node apparatus,” “a plurality of quoting node apparatuses,” “an inter-node communication protocol,” “a requesting party device,” “at least one processor,” “a service provider network,” “a first downstream quote request message,” “at least one downstream first partner quoting node,” “a first partner provider network,” “a downstream second partner quoting node,” and “a second partner provider network”); and claim 59 recites the additional element (e.g. “a layer of interconnected quoting nodes,” “at least one processor,” “a memory device,” “instructions,” “a first quoting node,” “a requesting entity electronic device,” “an inter-node communication protocol,” “a first service provider network,” “at least one geographically adjacent second service provider network,” “a second quoting node,” “a third quoting node,” and “a third service provider network”) – using the “first quoting node,” “system,” “plurality of quoting nodes,” “data communication network,” “data interface,” “electronic communication medium,” “first service provider network,” “processor,” “memory device,” “computer-executable instructions,” “requesting electronic device,” “an inter-node communication protocol,” “quote assembly algorithm,” “traversal control algorithm,” “number of second service provider networks,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “at least one second quoting node,” “third quoting node,” “third service provider network” and “the requesting party device”) to perform the receive, identify, assemble, determine, select, transmit, enable, assemble, transmit, receive, assemble, transmit, select, assemble, transmit, and enable in claim 31); using the “quoting node apparatus,” “plurality of quoting node apparatuses,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “requesting party device,” “at least one processor,” “service provider network,” “first downstream quote request message,” “at least one downstream first partner quoting node,” “first partner provider network,” “downstream second partner quoting node,” and “second partner provider network” to perform the (receiving, determining, generating, transmitting, receiving, aggregating, and returning in claim 49); and using the “layer of interconnected quoting nodes,” “at least one processor,” “memory device,” “instructions,” “first quoting node,” “requesting entity electronic device,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “first service provider network,” “at least one geographically adjacent second service provider network,” “second quoting node,” “third quoting node,” and “third service provider network” to perform the receive, determine, select, transmit, receive, combine, and send in claim 59. The “first quoting node,” “system,” “plurality of quoting nodes,” “data communication network,” “data interface,” “electronic communication medium,” “first service provider network,” “processor,” “memory device,” “computer-executable instructions,” “requesting electronic device,” “an inter-node communication protocol,” “quote assembly algorithm,” “traversal control algorithm,” “number of second service provider networks,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “at least one second quoting node,” “third quoting node,” “third service provider network” and “the requesting party device” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ) performing the function of receive, identify, assemble, determine, select, transmit, enable, assemble, transmit, receive, assemble, transmit, select, assemble, transmit, and enable in claim 31); the “quoting node apparatus,” “plurality of quoting node apparatuses,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “requesting party device,” “at least one processor,” “service provider network,” “first downstream quote request message,” “at least one downstream first partner quoting node,” “first partner provider network,” “downstream second partner quoting node,” and “second partner provider network” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of (receiving, determining, generating, transmitting, receiving, aggregating, and returning in claim 49); and the “layer of interconnected quoting nodes,” “at least one processor,” “memory device,” “instructions,” “first quoting node,” “requesting entity electronic device,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “first service provider network,” “at least one geographically adjacent second service provider network,” “second quoting node,” “third quoting node,” and “third service provider network” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ) performing the function of receive, determine, select, transmit, receive, combine, and send in claim 59) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component. That is, the aforementioned limitations merely invoke the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Independent claims 31, 49, and 59, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the “first quoting node,” “system,” “plurality of quoting nodes,” “data communication network,” “data interface,” “electronic communication medium,” “first service provider network,” “processor,” “memory device,” “computer-executable instructions,” “requesting electronic device,” “an inter-node communication protocol,” “quote assembly algorithm,” “traversal control algorithm,” “number of second service provider networks,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “at least one second quoting node,” “third quoting node,” “third service provider network” and “the requesting party device”) to perform the receive, identify, assemble, determine, select, transmit, enable, assemble, transmit, receive, assemble, transmit, select, assemble, transmit, and enable in claim 31); using the “quoting node apparatus,” “plurality of quoting node apparatuses,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “requesting party device,” “at least one processor,” “service provider network,” “first downstream quote request message,” “at least one downstream first partner quoting node,” “first partner provider network,” “downstream second partner quoting node,” and “second partner provider network” to perform the (receiving, determining, generating, transmitting, receiving, aggregating, and returning in claim 49); and using the “layer of interconnected quoting nodes,” “at least one processor,” “memory device,” “instructions,” “first quoting node,” “requesting entity electronic device,” “inter-node communication protocol,” “first service provider network,” “at least one geographically adjacent second service provider network,” “second quoting node,” “third quoting node,” and “third service provider network” to perform the receive, determine, select, transmit, receive, combine, and send in claim 59 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
As per dependent claims 32, 33, 35, 36, 47, 48, 51, and 55, the limitation merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claim 32 recites the transmissions of the downstream second connectivity service quote request message, the downstream third connectivity service quote request message, the upstream first connectivity response message, and the upstream second connectivity response message comprise a first recursive quoting process. Dependent claim 33 recites the transmissions of the downstream third connectivity service quote request message and the upstream first connectivity response comprise a second recursive quoting process. Dependent claim 35 recites the message includes at least one of (i) a list of service items desired by requesting party, and (ii) parameters for pricing throughout the first recursive quoting process. Dependent claim 36 recites each service item of the list of service items is represented by a standard service object that contains one or more location attributes or service attributes. Dependent claim 47 recites first, second, and third service provider networks are geographically distributed in (i) a linear order, or (ii) a matrix order. Dependent claim 48 recites at least one of the second and third service provider is a virtual service provider. Dependent claim 51 recites the quote request for end-to-end connectivity service includes a list of services represented by one or more standardized service codes for encoding at least one of a service attribute and a location attribute for at least one connectivity service in the list of services. Dependent claim 55 recites the hop counter value is utilized to detect loops and control a depth of search among chained partner provider networks. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 32, 33, 35, 36, 47, 48, 51, and 55, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 34, the recitation of “initiates an upstream recursive quoting process…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 32. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation, “an upstream quoting node” and “a downstream quoting node” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 31. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 37, the recitations, the recitations, “domain specific language (DSL), a markup language, or a comma-separated value” are other computer component recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 38, the recitation of “detect loops and control a depth of search among adjacent chained second service provider… “ is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 32. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 39, the recitation of “prior to transmitting a downstream second connectivity service quote request… (i) compare a hop counter value with the hop counter limit, (ii) determine that the hop counter value is less than the hop counter limit, and (iii) increase the hop counter value” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 32. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 40, the recitation of “enabled to, prior to transmitting a downstream third connectivity service quote request…(i) compare the increased hop counter value with the hop counter limit, (ii) determine that the increased hop counter value is less than the hop counter limit, and (iii) further increase the hop counter value” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 32. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 41, the recitation of “enabled … to transmit the downstream third connectivity service quote request… (i) all service locations in the downstream third connectivity service quote request may be serviced, or (ii) the hop counter value matches the hop counter limit” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 32. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 42, the recitation of “select the aggregated second quote portion based on parameters set in the first downstream second connectivity service quote request…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 32. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 43, the recitation of “limit transmission of the downstream second connectivity service quote request to a group of second service providers fewer than the number of second service providers...” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 32. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 44, the recitation, “system algorithm” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 45, the recitation of “automatically exclude information from at least one of: the first connectivity response capable of identifying (i) the third service provider , (ii) a pricing or quoting strategy of the third service provider, and/or (iii) trade secrets of the third service provider”; and “… identifying (i) the second service provider, (ii) a pricing or quoting strategy of the second service provider, and/or (iii) trade secrets of the second service provider” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 32. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 46, the recitation of “maintain anonymity of at least one of the second and third service providers with respect to the requesting party” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 31. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 50, the recitation of “… receive, assemble, and deliver recursive quoting information…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 49. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 52, the recitation, “one or more of a networked computer, networking hardware, network equipment, a router, a switch, a hub, a bridge, a radio network controller, a radio access network (RAN) device, a gateway, a server, and a network interface device” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 49, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 53, the recitation of “changing a hop counter value with each propagation of the first downstream quote request…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 49. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 54, the recitation of “terminating propagation of the first downstream quote request message upon (i) the consolidated quote being complete, or (ii) the hop counter value matches the hop counter limit” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 49. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 56, the recitation of “selecting the at least one downstream first partner from the plurality of downstream first partners…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 49. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation, “a system selection algorithm” is another computer components recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 49, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 57, the recitation of “automatically adjusting, after aggregating the first partner quote with a locally generated quote but prior to producing the consolidated quote, at least one quote condition” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 49. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 58, the recitation of “an upstream quoting node” and “a downstream quoting node” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 49. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 60, the recitation of “an upstream quoting node” and “a downstream quoting node” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 59. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 32-48, 50-58, and 60 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 32-48, 50-58, and 60, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, dependent claims 32-48, 40-58, and 60 are rejected as being ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Prior Art Discussion
As per Independent claims 31, 49, and 59, the best prior art and Foreign Prior Art,
1) Cullen et al. (US Patent No. 9,451,393 B1) discloses automated multi-party cloud connectivity whereby a connectivity coordinator searches its network service offerings metadata collection for providers (candidate connectivity providers) that have indicated that they offer the appropriate geographical coverage to operate a set of network segments that collectively link a client's endpoint to a provider network endpoint, with properties that match all the desired connectivity parameters specified in a query.
2) Jungck et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0262741 A1) discloses transparent provisioning of services over a network by using peering where a larger ISP with its own backbone networks (high speed, high capacity network connections which interconnect sub-networks located in disparate geographic regions) agree to allow traffic from other large ISP in exchange for traffic on their backbones.
3) Doane et al. (US Patent No. 10,516,603 B2) interfaces to inter-region connectivity for direct network peerings including a system with a connectivity coordinator which receives a request via the interface to establish a logically isolated network path to the second resource collection on behalf of a client that has a dedicated physical link set up to connect to the first resource collection; the connectivity coordinator may determine whether any such services are available, and transmit a notification, formatted in accordance with the interface, to the requesting client with the results of its determination.
4) McKee et al. (WO 2006/087518 A1) discloses a process configuration in a network where a request is generated for a sequence of services with appropriate quality metrics; and as each node providing one of the required services is discovered, it initiates a bounded echo search for the next service in the sequence, without returning to the scheduler and a daemon will recognize if a message is a search or an echo. If it is a search it will check locally for the required service and if necessary will check a hop count to see if further propagation of the search is allowed then pass the search message to its neighbors except the message originator.
However, Cullen et al., Jungck et al., Doane et al., and McKee et al. fails to disclose or fairly teach:
In claim 31:
transmit, using the inter-node communication protocol over the data communication network, a downstream third connectivity service quote request message to a third quoting node of a third service provider network (i) configured to provide third connectivity services within a third geographic region adjacent to the second geographic region but not adjacent to the first geographic region, (ii) chained with the respective second service provider network but not chained with the first service provider network, and (iii) for a second subsegment of the second service segment different from the first subsegment; receive, from the third quoting node over the inter-node communication protocol, an upstream first connectivity response message including a third quote portion for providing the second subsegment to the requesting electronic device
Cullen et al., Jungck et al., Doane et al., and McKee et al. fails to disclose or fairly teach:
in claim 49:
electronically returning, using the inter-node communication protocol, the consolidated quote to the requesting party device, wherein the first partner quote response includes distributed quote information from a downstream second partner quoting node of a second partner provider network (i) chained with the at least one first partner provider network but not chained with the service provider network, and (ii) geographically adjacent to the at least one first partner provider network but not geographically adjacent to the service provider network, and wherein the consolidated quote is assembled such that anonymity of the downstream second partner provider network is maintained with respect to the requesting party device.
However, Cullen et al., Jungck et al., Doane et al., and McKee et al. fails to disclose or fairly teach:
in claim 59:
automatically combine the at least one first quote response with an assembled quote for the first portion to generate a combined quote for the connectivity services; and
send the combined quote to the requesting electronic device, wherein the at least one quote response includes distributed quote information from a third quoting node of a third service provider network (i) chained with the second service provider network but not chained with the first service provider network, and (ii) geographically adjacent to the second service provider network but not geographically adjacent to the first service provider network, and wherein the combined quote is assembled such that anonymity of the third service provider network is maintained with respect to the requesting entity electronic device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Ye et al. (US Patent No. 11,682,055 B2) discloses partitioned private interconnects to provider networks used to extend the geographical areas over which a provider network can be accessed with desired levels of performance, a provider network may establish private network paths between its data centers and one or more routers that are physically located at an external facility owned and/or managed by business entities by a partner entity of the provider network.
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 FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights