DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 12/22/2025, Applicant, on 3/5/2026, amended Claims 1, 12, and 15, and cancelled Claims 14 and 20. Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant asserts claim 1 is integrated into a practical application due to the conversion of non-standardized updated information into standardized format, and that this is an improvement to prior art systems and thus eligible. Examiner disagrees as first the claims recite clear abstractions of both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as per the rejection below, and the standardization of information here can be akin to that of a person reading cursive and putting the information into a more legible standard from, and this does not make the claims practically integrated. Further, at best this is utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, as there is no improvement to the standardization process, or even any detail whatsoever as to how this might be done, with what, if any, additional elements. There is also no improvement to any additional element alone or in combination, any technology, or technological process, and thus “Applying It” similar to Alice, not practically integrated, nor significantly more, and not eligible by the MPEP.
Applicant cites Desjardins and Enfish, stating that the claims recite the amended limitations of “wherein the developing the workflow for development of the new telecommunications network comprises: based on the stored knowledge base data, identifying a plurality of tasks required for the development of the new telecommunications network; selecting, based on the plurality of tasks required for the development of the new telecommunications network, a set of milestone processes, wherein the set of milestone processes are selected from the stored knowledge base data about past telecommunications network projects of the network operator, forming selected milestone processes; and modifying the selected milestone processes, forming the plurality of milestone processes, wherein the modifying is based on the network requirements for a new telecommunications network to be developed by the network operator”, and “storing, by the processing system, in a storage including the stored knowledge base data, information about the performing the respective milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes for use in developing future telecommunications networks to be developed by the network operator”. Applicant then states the Claim and specifically these limitations integrates the abstraction. Examiner disagrees as this is a mere assertion that the claims are eligible under 101. Applicant does not state how or why they would be integrated with the limitations to overcome 101 under Prong 2 of the Alice Analysis of the MPEP, or even what additional elements, processes, or technologies have been improved other than stating the cited cases. This is utilization of current technologies such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Again there is no improvement to a technology or any technological process and performing these actions on a computer would be utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – The rejection is hereby removed in light of Applicant’s amendments for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 of the current application, hereby known as ‘117, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,260, hereby known as ‘260. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 17, Claims 1, 12, and 17 of ‘117 recite substantially similar steps of '260 Claims 1, 11, and 16.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 of ‘117 recite the limitations of:
determining network requirements for a new telecommunications network based in part on a forecast of subscribers for new service areas, existing service areas, or a combination thereof;
based on the network requirements, information associated with points of delivery, and the standardized past telecommunications network projects data, developing a workflow for development of the new telecommunications network, wherein the workflow includes a plurality of milestone processes;
performing respective milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes; and
initiating operation of the new telecommunications network.
Along with, In Claim 1:
retrieving past telecommunications network projects data from a knowledge base, wherein the past telecommunications network projects data have non-standardized data formats; and
converting the past telecommunications network projects data into standardized past telecommunications network projects data, wherein the standardized past telecommunications network projects data have a standardized data format;
In Claim 12:
and wherein the developing the workflow for development of the new telecommunications network comprises:
based on the stored knowledge base data, identifying a plurality of tasks required for the development of the new telecommunications network;
selecting, based on the plurality of tasks required for the development of the new telecommunications network, a set of milestone processes, wherein the set of milestone processes are selected from the stored knowledge base data about past telecommunications network projects of the network operator, forming selected milestone processes; and
modifying the selected milestone processes, forming the plurality of milestone processes, wherein the modifying is based on the network requirements for a new telecommunications network to be developed by the network operator;
and In Claim 17:
storing, by the processing system, in a storage including the stored knowledge base data, information about the performing the respective milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes for use in developing future telecommunications networks to be developed by the network operator;
Whereas Claims 1, 12, and 17 of ‘260 states:
receiving network requirements for a new telecommunications network;
retrieving stored knowledge base data about past telecommunications network projects;
based on the network requirements for the new telecommunications network and the stored knowledge base data, developing a workflow for development of the new telecommunications network, the workflow including a plurality of milestone processes;
based on the network requirements for the new telecommunications network and the stored knowledge base data, developing an orchestrator for automatically managing the development of the new telecommunications network;
performing respective milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes; and
initiating operation of the new telecommunications network.
These are obvious variants of each other as both recite substantially the same limitations. Further, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recite limitations to determining network requirements for a new telecommunications network based in part on a forecast of subscribers for new service areas, existing service areas, or a combination thereof (Collecting and Analyzing Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), based on the network requirements, information associated with points of delivery, and stored knowledge base data about past telecommunications network projects, developing a workflow for development of the new telecommunications network, wherein the workflow includes a plurality of milestone processes (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), identifying updates to the workflow by other milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), automatically modifying/performing respective milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and initiating operation of the new telecommunications network (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. Grouping sellers for pattern recognition, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Further, Claim 1 recites retrieving past telecommunications network projects data from a knowledge base, wherein the past telecommunications network projects data have non-standardized data formats (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and converting the past telecommunications network projects data into standardized past telecommunications network projects data, wherein the standardized past telecommunications network projects data have a standardized data format (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), Claim 12 recites wherein the developing the workflow for development of the new telecommunications network comprises: based on the stored knowledge base data, identifying a plurality of tasks required for the development of the new telecommunications network (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), selecting, based on the plurality of tasks required for the development of the new telecommunications network, a set of milestone processes, wherein the set of milestone processes are selected from the stored knowledge base data about past telecommunications network projects of the network operator, forming selected milestone processes (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and modifying the selected milestone processes, forming the plurality of milestone processes, wherein the modifying is based on the network requirements for a new telecommunications network to be developed by the network operator (Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an Evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and Claim 17 recites storing in a storage including the stored knowledge base data, information about the performing the respective milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes for use in developing future telecommunications networks to be developed by the network operator (Storing Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing project requirements; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which also under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. Grouping sellers for pattern recognition, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a device, a storage, processing system, memory, processor, and medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Behavior. For example, performing respective milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes encompasses a supervisor or manager managing milestones for a projects and performing, or having their teams perform, tasks directed at completing the milestone, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The device, processing system, memory, processor, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[00019]In various embodiments, the access terminal 112 can include a digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM), cable modem termination system (CMTS), optical line terminal (OLT) and/or other access terminal. The data terminals 114 can include personal computers, laptop computers, netbook computers, tablets or other computing devices along with digital subscriber line (DSL) modems, data over coax service interface specification (DOCSIS) modems or other cable modems, a wireless modem such as a 4G, 5G, or higher generation modem, an optical modem and/or other access devices.”
Which shows that any generic computer can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the device, processing system, processor, memory, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11, 13, 15-1616, and 18-19 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional element of an orchestrator which is highly generic as per Applicant’s Specification when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Joshi (U.S. Publication No. 2017/031,6387), Perrett (U.S. Publication No. 2017/033,1695), and Thomas (U.S. Publication No. 2012/001,6771). Joshi, a system and method for automation of workflow events, teaches a device, a processing system including a processor and a memory, retrieving past telecommunications network projects data from a knowledge base, identifying updates to the workflow by other milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes, automatically modifying/performing respective milestone processes of the plurality of milestone processes, retrieving, from a knowledge base, information about milestone processes of the past telecommunications network projects, developing the plurality of milestone processes for the new telecommunications network based on the information about milestone processes of the past telecommunications network projects, and developing a workflow, wherein the workflow includes a plurality of milestone processes, it does not explicitly state this is for a telecommunications network. Perrett, a system and method for coordinating telecommunications networks, teaches determining network requirements for a new telecommunications network based in part on a forecast of subscribers for new service areas, existing service areas, or a combination thereof, based on the network requirements, information associated with points of delivery, and the standardized past telecommunications network projects data, and initiating operation of the new telecommunications network, but it doesn’t teach receiving the information in both standardized and unstandardized forms. Thomas, a system and method for workflow driven channel search results, teaches standardization of data collected by a system, automation of workflows by utilizing networks, but does not state that there is a conversion from a non-standardized telecommunications project data to a standardized form. None of the prior art explicitly teaches this state that there is a conversion from a non-standardized telecommunications project data to a standardized form, as pointed out by Applicant on pgs. 6-8 of the Remarks of 3/5/2026, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1, 12, and 17, and their dependents, are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170331695 A1
PERRETT; Jay et al.
COORDINATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS
US 20170316387 A1
Joshi; Neel et al.
AUTOMATION OF WORKFLOW EVENTS
US 20030061068 A1
Curtis, David C.
Intelligent service management system
US 20220237565 A1
DZIERZANOWSKI; JAMES M. et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROJECT ACCOUNTABILITY SERVICES
US 20220124005 A1
Doshi; Kshitij Arun et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REACTIVE INTENT-DRIVEN END-TO-END ORCHESTRATION
US 20220095121 A1
Orbigo; Allan et al.
NETWORK PLANNING TOOL FOR FORECASTING IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS
US 20160350700 A1
Leary; Daniel L. et al.
Project Management System For Integrated Project Schedules
US 20160308982 A1
Greene; William S.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPLEMENTING A MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS CENTER IN A GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM OF INTERRELATED SERVICES
US 20130297060 A1
Sundling, JR.; David Alan et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VIRTUALIZED COMPOSITE PROJECT WORK SCHEDULES
US 20130173349 A1
Raman; Venkatarama Kothanda
MANAGING A PROJECT DURING TRANSITION
US 20130091469 A1
Roberts; Linda et al.
Apparatus and Method for Collaborative Network in an Enterprise Setting
US 20120016771 A1
Thomas; Tracey R.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WORKFLOW DRIVEN CHANNEL SEARCH RESULTS
US 20100138268 A1
GUO; Aiqun et al.
PROGRESS MANAGEMENT PLATFORM
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 6//2026
Prosecution Insights