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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 08/30/2024, is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2022/ 056655 with an international filing date of 03/15/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-22, 24-25 and 30 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 8-13 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process) and claim 28 is drawn to an apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1 and 28 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1 and 28 merely recite the steps of receiving, determining, identifying and implementing configuration changes. Specifically, the claims recite the steps of, receiving specification information identifying a first desired specification of a first requested service for the system; determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification, wherein determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification comprises determining whether there are any discrepancies between the first desired specification and the current specification of the system; after determining that there is a discrepancy between the first desired specification and the current specification of the system, identifying a first group of one or more configuration changes for the system for fixing said discrepancy; and implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in the first group (Claim 1), which is grouped within Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with generic computer elements and these generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 8-13 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, the claims fail to be patent eligible when analyzed under the prongs of step 2A and step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanso (2015/0095708).
As per claim 1, Kanso teaches a method for configuring a system having current specification, the method comprising: receiving specification information identifying a first desired specification of a first requested service for the system [paragraphs 0009 and 0025];
determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification, wherein determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification comprises determining whether there are any discrepancies between the first desired specification and the current specification of the system [paragraphs 0030 and 0041];
after determining that there is a discrepancy between the first desired specification and the current specification of the system, identifying a first group of one or more configuration changes for the system for fixing said discrepancy [paragraphs 0047-0053]; and
implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in the first group [paragraph 0054].
As per claim 2, Kanso teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying one or more parameters causing the discrepancy between the first desired specification and the current specification of the system, wherein said one or more configuration changes are for changing said one or more parameters [paragraph 0003].
As per claim 3, Kanso teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first desired specification identifies a first requested service and one or more operational requirements related to providing the first requested service [paragraph 0030].
Claim 28 has similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore it is being rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanso (2015/0095708) in view of Ryu et al. (2020/0314731).
As per claim 4, Kanso teaches the claimed limitations of claims 1 and 3 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Ryu et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification comprises: determining whether the system currently provides the first requested service, and/or determining whether the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied, and if the system currently provides the first requested service the determining comprises retrieving inventory information identifying a list of services the system currently provides, and determining whether the first requested service is included in the list of services; and if the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied the determining comprises collecting state data indicating one or more operational states of the system, and using the collected state data, determining whether the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied, and wherein determining whether the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied further comprises comparing the collected state data to the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service, and whether the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied is determined based on the comparison [Ryu et al., paragraphs 0137-0145].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanso with Ryu et al. in order to enable implementation of enhanced features and functionalities in 4G/5G systems.
As per claim 8, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising adding to a first knowledge base one or more of the following: (i) information identifying the first requested service; (ii) said one or more operational requirements related to providing the first requested service; (iii) the state data; and (iv) said one or more configuration changes [Kanso, paragraph 0034].
As per claim 9, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein implementing in the system said one or more configuration changes in the first group results in updated current specification, and the method further comprises: receiving second specification information identifying a second desired specification of a second requested service for the system; determining whether the system satisfies the second desired specification, wherein determining whether the system satisfies the second desired specification comprises determining whether there are any discrepancies between the updated current specification and the second desired specification; after determining that there is a discrepancy between the second desired specification and the updated current specification, identifying a second group of one or more configuration changes for the system for fixing the discrepancy between the second desired specification and the updated current specification; and implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in the second group [Ryu et al., paragraphs 0182-0185].
As per claim 10, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification, wherein determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification comprises determining whether there are any discrepancies between the updated current specification and the first desired specification [Kanso, paragraph 0041].
As per claim 11, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: after determining that there is a discrepancy between the first desired specification and the updated current specification, identifying a third group of one or more configuration changes for the system for fixing the discrepancy between the first desired specification and the updated current specification; and implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in the third group [Kanso, paragraphs 0043-0045].
As per claim 12, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising adding to a second knowledge base information identifying the second requested service, wherein the second knowledge base is different from the first knowledge base [Kanso, paragraphs 0025-0026].
As per claim 13, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting an occurrence of a triggering event; as a result of detecting the occurrence of the triggering event, determining whether the system still satisfies the first desired specification, wherein the triggering event comprises an elapse of a predefined time period or a configuration change in the system; after determining that the system no longer satisfies the first desired specification, identifying another group of one or more configuration changes for the system; implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in said another group; and updating the first knowledge base by adding to the first knowledge base information indicative of the one or more configuration changes included in said another group [Ryu et al,. paragraphs 0156-0160].
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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 on (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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444