DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 2/26/2026, Applicant, on 5/25/2026, amended Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 14, and 17-20. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant recites there are specific technical operations by reciting the amended limitations of the claims, stating that these are eligible, and then states that these steps cannot be performed in the human mind by stating SRI and CyberSource decisions, and states again that a human mind cannot load a current telecommunications install base from a service registry node, alleging the claims are neither a “Mental Process” or a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, again reciting the amended limitations and stating that the claims are eligible. Examiner disagrees as there are two clearly stated identified abstract ideas, that of a “Mental Process” and a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, which is detailed in the rejection below. Determining whether a first order is valid and then verifying whether there is a change which is compatible with the work order is something a scheduling manager would do, and can be performed in the human mind and is clearly scheduling, which is Managing Human Activity. Further, the claims are not directed to an improvement in any additional element, combination, a technology, or technological field, but rather recites claims directed at an abstraction, that of queueing work orders and scheduling. The use of a service registry node and current telecommunications install base in a computer/apparatus with a screen, processor, and storage device does not make the claim eligible, and this is utilization of current technologies such as a computer to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. The claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as by generally linking the claim to management node, processing circuitry, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they recite merely receiving, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as processing circuitry, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Applicant asserts that the claims recite are integrated into a practical application by providing a concrete technical improvement to telecommunications order system, citing the specification stating that this fixes the order and queue. Applicant states again the use of the registry node and that the amendments and claimed language minimize inconsistent customer’s install base, invalid orders, and unexpected service configurations, and thus the claims recite a specific, technical sequence of operations performed by specific network nodes on specific data structures to improve the operation of telecommunication order management systems. Examiner disagrees as the claims are not directed to an improvement in a system, but rather in the abstract process. There is no improvement to any additional element, combination, a technology, or technological field, but rather the claims are directed at utilization of current technologies such as a computer/processing circuitry to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. Any purported improvement is part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they recite merely receiving, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Again, there is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Applicant asserts the claims recite significantly more by reciting the amended limitations of the claims, and stating that these are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, and thus are eligible under 101. Examiner disagrees as this is a mere allegation of eligibility under 101 and Applicant has not stated what additional elements would be improved or combination thereof. Further, the claims as a whole, alone or in combination, do not improve any claimed addition element, such as by generally linking the claim to computer system, processing circuitry, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they recite merely receiving, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as computer, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, 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 for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the limitations of “(i) anticipated changes from one or more non-completed orders preceding the first order in the sequence and (ii) estimated lifecycle changes of existing telecommunications products or services in the current telecommunications install base, the estimated lifecycle changes including at least one of scheduled activation, scheduled suspension, and scheduled expiry of a telecommunications product or service, to project a state of the telecommunications install base as of the execution date of the first order;”. This projected state is not defined in the specification and how this works with the verification. For instance, the Specification states:
“When a new order is created and is scheduled to run before other future-dated
orders then the change from the current order is propagated into these subsequent
orders' install base. In other words, the subsequent orders re-calculate the install base
projection and re-apply order changes to be valid or to verify the validity of one or more orders/changes…”
Which is the only place where there is a verification, and this is to orders/changes, but does not illicit how this would work with the anticipated changes and the lifecycle changes to come up with this verification. This is the only verification in the Specification. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a patent must describe the technology; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the limitations to determine a first projection of a current telecommunications install base of a customer, the current telecommunications install base identifying telecommunications products and services subscribed to by the customer, based on an execution date of a first order of the plurality of orders, the first order including at least one change to the current telecommunications install base, and the plurality of orders being configured to be executed as a stack of future-dated telecommunications orders in a sequence, the first projection being determined by loading the current telecommunications install base from a service registry node and applying, to the current telecommunications install base, (i) anticipated changes from one or more non-completed orders preceding the first order in the sequence and (ii) estimated lifecycle changes of existing telecommunications products or services in the current telecommunications install base, the estimated lifecycle changes including at least one of scheduled activation, scheduled suspension, and scheduled expiry of a telecommunications product or service, to project a state of the telecommunications install base as of the execution date of the first order (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determine whether the first order is valid based on the determined first projection of the current telecommunications install base, wherein determining whether the first order is valid comprises verifying that the at least one change of the first order is compatible with the projected state of the telecommunications install base at the execution date of the first order (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and one of reject and queue the first order for execution on the execution date of the first order based on the determination of whether the first order is valid and in response to insertion of the first order into the stack, trigger re-projection of a respective install base of one or more subsequent orders in the stack that follow the first order, to re-validate the one or more subsequent orders against the re-projected install base (Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, 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 accepting or rejecting an order, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a management node, processing circuitry, and a computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Commercial Interaction. For example, determining whether the first order is valid based on the determined first projection of the current install base encompasses a manager, data analyst, etc. determining a projection for the customer base using order information, an observation, evaluation, and judgement, which is also Mathematical Concept/Relationship. 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 a Commercial Interaction, 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 management node, processing circuitry, 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 collecting 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:
“The processing circuitry 32 may include a processor 36 and a memory 34 (e.g., computer readable medium, non-transitory computer readable medium, etc.). In particular, in addition to or instead of a processor, such as a central processing unit, and memory, the processing circuitry 32 may comprise integrated circuitry for processing and/or control,”
Which shows that any generic computer using a processor and memory 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 collecting 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 node, medium, etc., nor the collecting and 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 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be 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 1-20 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 Vasudevan (U.S. Publication No. 2016/010,5372), Berk (U.S. Publication No. 2021/014,2274), and Prakash (U.S. Publication No. 2021/022,4464. Vasudevan, a system and method for a customizable model for throttling and prioritizing orders in a cloud environment, teaches a a management node where there is a module/node for order management comprising processing circuitry where processing units configured to perform the processes of the system, the plurality of orders being configured to be executed in a sequence, to determine whether the first order is valid based on the determined first projection of the current install base, one of reject and queue the first order for execution on the execution date of the first order based on the determination of whether the first order is valid, but Vasudevan does not teach to determine a first projection of a current install base based on an execution date of a first order of the plurality of orders, the first order including at least one change to the current install base. Berk, a system for dynamic effort-based delivery value predictive updates, teaches a determined estimated time, which is an execution date, of an order and a plurality of orders, in order to change services or add value to the service, but neither it nor Vasudevan teaches loading via a service registry node and applying anticipated changes from non-completed orders preceding the first order in the sequence, nor does it teach the verifying that the change of the first order is compatible with the projected state of the telecommunications base at the execution date of the first order. Prakash, a collaborative mechanism system and method, teaches proposed changes identified from the draft second branch object, presenting the conflicting proposed changes in chronological order according to the time that the draft branch objects from which the proposed changes were identified were submitted and the to track time and context where users typically navigate into activities on the basis of time, basic context selection is one click and the user is presented with what items were last updated in a work session in reverse chronological order, but does not teach loading via a service registry node and applying anticipated changes from non-completed orders preceding the first order in the sequence, nor does it teach the verifying that the change of the first order is compatible with the projected state of the telecommunications base at the execution date of the first order. None of the prior art explicitly teaches this teaches loading via a service registry node and applying anticipated changes from non-completed orders preceding the first order in the sequence, nor does it teach the verifying that the change of the first order is compatible with the projected state of the telecommunications base at the execution date of the first order, as Applicant points out on pgs. 7-10 of Applicant’s Remarks of 5/25/2026, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1, 9, 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 20240027208 A1
TAMAR; AVIV et al.
NEURAL NETWORK-BASED ROUTING USING TIME-WINDOW CONSTRAINTS
US 20210224464 A1
Prakash; Sai et al.
COLLABORATION MECHANISM
US 20210142274 A1
Berk; Jonathan et al.
SYSTEM FOR DYNAMIC EFFORT-BASED DELIVERY VALUE PREDICTIVE UPDATES
US 20200304384 A1
Ward, JR.; David John
Flexible Capacity Reservations For Network-Accessible Resources
US 20160105372 A1
Vasudevan; Ramesh et al.
CUSTOMIZABLE MODEL FOR THROTTLING AND PRIORITIZING ORDERS IN A CLOUD ENVIRONMENT
US 20240249297 A1
Dickinson; Miles et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WEB-BASED MANAGEMENT OF CONSUMER PACKAGED GOODS
US 20240086803 A1
Lopez; David
Platform for Cross-Enterprise Project Monitoring, Management, and Reporting
US 20230334221 A1
LEFEBVRE; Martin C. et al.
Method and Apparatus for Inbound Message Summarization
US 20230161368 A1
Forbes, JR.; Joseph W.
System, method, and data packets for messaging for electric power grid elements over a secure internet protocol network
US 20230031872 A1
Bewley; Alex et al.
ENHANCED PLATFORM AND PROCESSES FOR SCALABILITY
US 20220201368 A1
Borok; Jay L. et al.
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED SECONDARY CONTENT MANAGEMENT IN A DIGITAL NETWORK
US 20210350442 A1
AMRON; Scott
DISTRIBUTED INVENTORY SYSTEM
US 20210263945 A1
Siebel; Thomas M. et al.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR AN ENTERPRISE AI AND INTERNET-OF-THINGS PLATFORM
US 20210019699 A1
Bornski; Matthew Timothy et al.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) DELIVERY WITH DROP BEACON
US 20200160263 A1
Kuettner; Marcus
System, Method, And Packaging For Secure Food Delivery
US 20200117151 A1
McKeag; Tory et al.
OUTAGE AND SWITCH MANAGEMENT FOR A POWER GRID SYSTEM
US 20190364157 A1
OHTA; Takeomi et al.
WEB CATALOG GENERATOR, PRINT ORDER PROCESSOR INCLUDING THE WEB CATALOG GENERATOR, PRINTING SYSTEM INCLUDING THE PRINT ORDER PROCESSOR, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
US 20180091868 A1
Borok; Jay L. et al.
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED SECONDARY CONTENT MANAGEMENT IN A DIGITAL NETWORK
US 20150163206 A1
McCarthy; Kevin L. et al.
CUSTOMIZABLE SECURE DATA EXCHANGE ENVIRONMENT
US 20140222610 A1
Mikurak; Michael G.
INCREASED VISIBILITY DURING ORDER MANAGEMENT IN A NETWORK-BASED SUPPLY CHAIN ENVIRONMENT
US 20050289013 A1
Goldberg, Nathan D.
Order management system
US 7469219 B2
Goldberg; Nathan D.
Order management system
US 10552774 B2
Shih; Kathryn Marie et al.
Cost-minimizing task scheduler
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 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights