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
Claims 1-15 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated June 26, 2026. In the Response, submitted on September 3, 2026, claims 3-4, 9, and 13-14 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on Page 8 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of claims 3-4, 9, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 8-11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicant states “The claims are directed to a specific, technical improvement in service quality management for communication services: a system and method that integrates prediction of impending service quality degradation with cost-driven, automated countermeasure selection and execution.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “automated countermeasure selection and execution”) not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, it is unclear what “technological improvement” is being claimed.
On Pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant further states “The specification identifies the concrete technical problem addressed by the invention: a service provider must take countermeasures to prevent service quality from falling below the level guaranteed in a service level agreement (SLA), but it is difficult to determine how much cost is to be spent to take countermeasures before the service quality falls below the presented service quality; and when degradation in communication quality is predicted, it is not possible to determine how much cost is to be taken to take countermeasures. The claimed invention solves this technical problem with a specific, concrete method: the system stores countermeasure cost information indicating a relation between a countermeasure candidate and a cost; and the method includes predicting service quality degradation based on monitoring information of service quality; estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, a countermeasure cost required for each countermeasure candidate of a quality item for which the service quality degradation is predicted; and determining the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes it is unclear what “concrete technical problem” is identified in the specification. For example, Paras. [0005] and [0006] state a business problem “service provider presents, to a service subscriber, protocols such as service level agreement (SLA) that clearly indicates how much service quality can be guaranteed, and takes countermeasures at a high cost so as not to fall below the presented service quality. However, it is difficult to determine how much cost is to be spent to take countermeasures before the service quality falls below the presented service quality… However, it is not known when the service quality falls below the presented service quality, and therefore, it is necessary to always take a countermeasure at a high cost.” Nothing in the specification describes any problems related to any technology such that the “specification identifies the concrete technical problem” as alleged. Furthermore, the test for subject matter eligibility is not whether the claims recite something “specific, concrete” (See MPEP 2106(I), “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result,’ State Street Bank, 149 F.3d 1368, 1374, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998)”. Nothing in the claims recites a “technical” solution to a technical problem.
Similar to Trading Tech., Applicant is arguing a business process improvement (determining much cost is to be spent to take countermeasures before the service quality falls below the presented service quality), rather than an improvement to any computers or technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant states “This is not an abstract economic transaction, not a mental process that can be performed by a human using pen and paper, and not a fundamental economic practice. The system operates on machine-collected service monitoring data in real time, runs automated predictions of quality degradation, performs cost estimation computations for each countermeasure candidate against stored cost tables, selects the optimal countermeasure, displays results on an interface device, and automatically commands a countermeasure execution device to implement the selected countermeasure. The quality degradation countermeasure system predicts service quality degradation based on a service monitoring result, estimates, based on the prediction of the quality degradation, a countermeasure cost required for a countermeasure of the quality degradation, and determines, based on the countermeasure cost, a countermeasure to be implemented. This integrated, automated, machine-implemented pipeline - running cyclically, processing real-time monitoring data, estimating costs numerically, and automatically executing countermeasures - is not merely ‘organizing human activity.’ A human could not perform this process manually in real-time at the speeds required to prevent service degradation.”
Examiner notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “machine-collected…data in real time, runs automated predictions…displays results on an interface device… automatically commands a countermeasure execution device to implement the selected countermeasure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Lasty, Examiner notes the Non-Final Rejection dated June 26, 2026 never stated that the claims recited a mental process. Thus, Applicant’s comments regarding a human and mental process are moot.
On Page 10 of the Response, Applicant further argues “The claims are integrated into a concrete practical application: the automated, real-time management of communication service quality in a deployed server-to-user-terminal network. The quality degradation countermeasure system monitors quality of a service provided from a server to a user terminal via a network; the server includes a processor, a memory, and a network interface and provides a service according to a service program. The quality degradation countermeasure device predicts the service quality degradation, estimates the countermeasure cost, and determines the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost; the quality degradation countermeasure execution device executes the quality degradation countermeasure; and the interface device displays a prediction result of the service quality degradation, an estimation result of the countermeasure cost, and a determination result of the quality degradation countermeasure. The claims therefore produce a concrete, machine-executed result (automated countermeasure execution in a real service environment) with a concrete technical effect (preventing service quality from falling below SLA thresholds at minimum countermeasure cost). This is a practical application of a specific technical process within a specific technical environment, not merely organizing human activity.”
Examiner notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “automated, real-time management … in a deployed server-to-user-terminal network…monitors quality of a service provided from a server to a user terminal via a network; the server includes a processor, a memory, and a network interface and provides a service according to a service program…the quality degradation countermeasure execution device executes the quality degradation countermeasure; and the interface device displays…, machine-executed result (automated countermeasure execution in a real service environment)” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Lastly, as discussed above, nothing in the claims or specification describes a “technical process” such that the claims recite a practical application, as alleged.
On Pages 10-11 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Even under Alice Step 2B, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specific technical combination of: (a) a prediction unit that predicts service quality degradation from monitoring data; (b) a stored countermeasure cost table relating countermeasure candidates to costs; (c) a countermeasure cost estimation unit that estimates, based on the stored table, the cost for each countermeasure candidate for the predicted quality item; and (d) a countermeasure determination unit that selects the countermeasure based on the estimated cost - is not a generic use of a computer to perform a conventional step. The processor 30 operates as a corresponding functional unit according to programs; the memory stores a prediction unit 311, a countermeasure cost estimation unit 312, and a countermeasure determination unit 313; and the auxiliary storage device stores a service quality degradation prediction table 321, a countermeasure cost table 322, a countermeasure cost calculation table 324 for each service, and a countermeasure priority table 325 for each service. This is a specific, structured system with defined components, defined data structures, and a defined operational sequence - not the mere recitation of a generic computer performing an abstract idea. The characterization of the recited elements as ‘generic computer components’ performing conventional tasks is not supported by the record; no prior art or other evidence has been cited to establish that this specific combination of prediction, cost estimation, and automated countermeasure determination for service quality management is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art.”
Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a prediction unit …a stored countermeasure cost table …countermeasure cost estimation unit….a countermeasure determination unit…automated countermeasure determination)” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As discussed in the prior Non-Final Rejection, dated June 26, 2026, claims 1 and 11 recite the additional elements of: (i) a system (claims 1 and 11); (ii) a service provision device (claims 1 and 11); (iii) one or more processors (claim 11); and (iv) one or more storage devices (claim 11). Lastly, Examiner agrees that none of the additional elements were determined as being “well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art.” Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 11-18 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Page 11 of the Response, Applicant states “The claims of the present invention are directed to a fundamentally different problem: determining, based on predicted service quality degradation and estimated countermeasure costs, the most cost-effective countermeasure to prevent degradation before it occurs”.
Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “determining, based on predicted service quality degradation and estimated countermeasure costs, the most cost-effective countermeasure to prevent degradation before it occurs”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On Page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues “Karacali-Alkyamac does not predict future degradation – it detects existing or occurring degradation and reactively selects a video parameter adjustment from a table. The system receives network packet level measurements and uses those measurements to accurately predict video quality, and based on these measurements can immediately or a short time thereafter implement corresponding counter-measures if degradation is detected. While Karacali-Akyamac uses the term "predict" in a loose sense, its system is reactive: while transmitting, the system measures and monitors video quality in real time, and if degradation occurs, the system can respond by evaluating network paths and switching to a better performing alternate path. This is reactive detection and remediation - not the proactive prediction and prospective cost-based countermeasure selection of the present invention.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Karacali-Akyamac discloses that the system continues measuring and monitoring the video quality in real-time to then accurately “predict video quality” (i.e., predicting service quality degradation). Based on these measurements the system can immediately or a short time thereafter implement corresponding counter-measures if degradation is detected. Examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art, would understand that counter-measure of Karacali-Akyamac is implemented because the degradation persists (“the system can immediately or a short time thereafter implement corresponding counter-measures”, See Para. 27). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that ““Karacali-Alkyamac does not predict future degradation” is not found persuasive
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that Karacali-Akyamac fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “proactive prediction”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On Page 13 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Additionally, Karacali-Akyamac has no concept of countermeasure cost. The counter-measures in Karacali-Akyamac are video transmission parameter modifications: increase the bitrate, reduce the bitrate, change the codec type, change packet priority, increase or decrease compression, change the network path. None of these is associated with a cost. Karacali-Akyamac's table of counter-measures maps categories of video degradation to video parameter adjustments based on effectiveness - not based on a countermeasure cost estimated from stored cost information. The selection criterion in Karacali-Akyamac is the type and degree of degradation matched to a counter-measure category, not a comparison of estimated countermeasure costs across candidates.”
In response to applicant's arguments against Karacali-Akyamac individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding “Karacali-Akyamac has no concept of countermeasure cost” are not found persuasive, as Michihiro was cited for teaching estimating a countermeasure cost.
On Pages 14-15 of the Response, in discussing Michihiro, Applicant argues “Although Michihiro does disclose a cost calculation rule table and a cost-based countermeasure selection, the cost calculation rule table stores the cost, for example, the cost required for the past security measures, the cost value per unit function calculated from the total of the security countermeasure function. This is the cost of cybersecurity countermeasures for malware attacks - it is not the cost of communication network countermeasures for service quality degradation…The proposed combination takes Michihiro's security countermeasure cost calculation methodology and grafts it onto Karacali-Akyamac's video transmission quality system. However, this combination faces fundamental technical incompatibility: First, the nature of the ‘countermeasures’ is entirely different. Karacali-Akyamac's countermeasures are real-time video transmission parameter adjustments (bitrate, codec, network path) that are applied instantly by the video streaming system. Michihiro's countermeasures are security measures against malware attacks (patches, access controls, configuration changes) that have an associated cost calculated from past security expenditure data and unit function costs. The concept of a ‘cost calculation rule table’ that stores the cost required for past security measures has no direct analogue in a video transmission quality system - it is not immediately apparent what ‘cost’ of a bitrate adjustment or codec change would mean, or how Michihiro's cost calculation framework would be applied to Karacali-Akyamac's parameter adjustment countermeasures.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Michichiro’s countermeasures being for malware attacks (versus service quality degradation) does not prohibit or preclude the concept of countermeasures being determined based on cost from applying to the service quality degradation prediction system of Karacali-Akyamac's. Furthermore, Para. 29 of Karacali-Akyamac explicitly discloses that the specific countermeasures can be sorted by cost. Therefore, it would be obvious to include cost calculations of the countermeasures of Michihiro with the countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in order to provide the most cost-effective countermeasure (See Para. 145 of Michihiro “the measure with the smallest cost … may be selected”).
On Page 15 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Second, Michihiro's countermeasure cost is not estimated prospectively per quality item as required by the claims. The independent claims require estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, a countermeasure cost required for each countermeasure candidate of a quality item for which the service quality degradation is predicted. The cost estimation is triggered by a specific predicted quality item and is computed per candidate for that item. Michihiro's countermeasure execution program searches for a countermeasure candidate having a predetermined allowable cost or less and a predetermined allowable influence degree or less in a combination of countermeasure candidates - it searches for candidates that fall within a pre-set allowable cost threshold, rather than estimating the cost for each candidate in response to a predicted quality degradation event and comparing those estimated costs to determine the most cost-effective option. The claimed cost estimation is a forward-looking computation driven by a specific predicted degradation event; Michihiro's cost calculation is a backward-looking lookup of past expenditure data used to filter candidates against a static allowable cost threshold.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Michihiro fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the cost estimation is triggered by a specific predicted quality item and is computed per candidate for that item”, “estimating the cost for each candidate in response to a predicted quality degradation event and comparing those estimated costs to determine the most cost-effective option”, “a forward-looking computation driven by a specific predicted degradation event”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On Pages 15-16 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Third, there is no meaningful motivation to combine Michihiro's cybersecurity cost framework with Karacali-Akyamac's video quality system. The stated motivation is that the combination would "provide the most cost-effective countermeasure." However, the concept of selecting the most cost-effective countermeasure in a video transmission quality context does not follow naturally from combining a cybersecurity system's cost calculation methodology with a video parameter adjustment system. The ‘cost’ of a video transmission parameter adjustment is not the same kind of quantity as the cost of a cybersecurity patch - one is a near-zero-latency software parameter setting, and the other is a potentially expensive IT security operation. A person of ordinary skill in the art of communication service quality management would not look to a cybersecurity countermeasure cost calculation system for guidance on how to quantify and compare the costs of video transmission parameter adjustments, absent impermissible hindsight from the present application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Para. 29 of Karacali-Akyamac lists, for example but not limited to, countermeasures that “increase the bit-rate… change packet priority, increase… compression…” A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand those countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac would also be “potentially expensive IT…operation[s]”, similar to the “100,000 yen….calculated as the cost of the countermeasure candidate ‘patch A applied’.” (See Para. 103 of Michihiro). Therefore, as Karacali-Akyamac’s countermeasures can be “sorted by….cost”, it would have been obvious to include cost calculations of the countermeasures of Michihiro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in order to provide the most cost-effective countermeasure (See Para. 145 of Michihiro “the measure with the smallest cost … may be selected”). Therefore, Examiner’s legal conclusion has been reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 16 of the Response, Applicant argues “Fourth, neither Karacali-Akyamac nor Michihiro teaches predicting service quality degradation before it occurs as a proactive basis for countermeasure cost estimation. The independent claims require that the system first predicts service quality degradation (as a proactive measure), and then estimates the countermeasure cost as a function of that prediction. Karacali-Akyamac reacts to detected degradation; Michihiro responds to malware attack methods generated by executing malware on a simulation terminal - it does not predict future service quality degradation in a communication service. The proactive prediction cost estimation countermeasure determination workflow of the claimed invention is absent from the combination.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that “neither Karacali-Akyamac nor Michihiro” show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “predicting service quality degradation before it occurs as a proactive basis for countermeasure cost estimation”) (emphasis added) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 16-18 Applicant makes various arguments regarding the Gargaro reference and the general invention. Examiner notes in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 3O75 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On Pages 17-18, Applicant argues “The claimed invention's unique sequence is: (1) predict quality degradation from monitoring data before it occurs; (2) estimate, per countermeasure candidate, the cost that would be required to execute that candidate as a countermeasure for the predicted quality item; and (3) determine the countermeasure by selecting among candidates based on those estimated costs. The countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates a countermeasure cost required for a countermeasure based on the prediction of the service quality degradation and stores the estimated countermeasure cost in the countermeasure cost table 322; and the countermeasure determination unit 313 determines the countermeasure based on the countermeasure cost by comparing countermeasure cost estimation results between candidates and selecting the candidate having the minimum countermeasure cost estimation result. This specific, proactive, per-candidate cost estimation and cost-minimization workflow is not taught anywhere in Gargaro.”
As stated above, in response to applicant's argument that Gargaro fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “(1) predict quality degradation from monitoring data before it occurs; (2) estimate, per countermeasure candidate, the cost that would be required to execute that candidate as a countermeasure for the predicted quality item; and (3) determine the countermeasure by selecting among candidates based on those estimated costs. The countermeasure cost estimation unit….stores the estimated countermeasure cost in the countermeasure cost table”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 recite a method (i.e., a process) and claims 11-15 recite a system comprising one or more processors (i.e., machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 and 11 recites steps/functions of: determining a countermeasure against quality degradation in a service, storing countermeasure cost information indicating a relation between a countermeasure candidate and a cost; predicting service quality degradation based on monitoring information of service quality; estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, a countermeasure cost required for each countermeasure candidate of a quality item for which the service quality degradation is predicted; and determining the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost.
The claim as a whole recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic practices or commercial interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1 and 11 recite the additional elements of: (i) a system (claims 1 and 11); (ii) a service provision device (claims 1 and 11); (iii) one or more processors (claim 11); and (iv) one or more storage devices (claim 11).
The above additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Fig. 1) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-10 and 12-15 are also ineligible.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (h) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0055331 to Karacali-Akyamac et al. (hereinafter “Karacali-Akyamac”) in view of JP2018045327A to Michihiro et al. (hereinafter “Michihiro”).
In regard to claim 1, Karacali-Akyamac discloses a method for determining, by a system a countermeasure against quality degradation in a service provided by a service provision device (Abst.;) (…detects the video quality degradation of the video communication (i.e., quality degradation in a service provided by a service provision device), selects an appropriate counter-measure based at least in part on the particular type of degradation encountered (i.e., determining, by a system a countermeasure against quality degradation).)
Karacali-Akyamac discloses the method comprising, by the system: predicting service quality degradation based on monitoring information of service quality (Abst.; Para. 27) (Throughout the transmission the system continues measuring and monitoring the video quality in real-time (i.e., based on monitoring information of service quality) …The system 304 uses the network packet level measurements 302 to accurately predict video quality (i.e., predicting service quality degradation). Based on these measurements 302 (i.e., based on monitoring information of service quality), the system can immediately or a short time thereafter implement corresponding counter-measures 306 if degradation is detected.)
Karacali-Akyamac discloses a quality item for which the service quality degradation is predicted (Abst.; Para. 27) (Throughout the transmission the system continues measuring and monitoring the video quality in real-time …The system 304 uses the network packet level measurements 302 to accurately predict video quality (i.e., a quality item for which the service quality degradation is predicted).)
Karacali-Akyamac does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Michihiro teaches wherein the system stores countermeasure cost information indicating a relation between a countermeasure candidate and a cost (Paras. 18, 26-27) (…the countermeasure candidate generation program 109 newly provides the security countermeasure function… The storage device 105 stores data (information) (i.e., wherein the system stores) used by the CPU 103, more …. a countermeasure candidate generation rule table 117, a cost calculation rule table 118… The cost calculation rule table 118 shows a rule for calculating the cost of the countermeasure candidate (i.e., countermeasure cost information indicating a relation between a countermeasure candidate and a cost).)
As discussed above, Karacali-Akyamac discloses that the item is a quality item (for which the service quality degradation is predicted). Karacali-Akyamac does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Michihiro teaches estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, a countermeasure cost required for each countermeasure candidate of an item (Paras. 1-2, 18, 22, 26-27, 40-44) (countermeasure device…cyber attacks (i.e., item)…the countermeasure candidate generation program 109 newly provides the security countermeasure function… . By executing the cost calculation program 110, the cost of the security countermeasure candidate is calculated (i.e., estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, a countermeasure cost required for each countermeasure candidate of an item). The cost calculation rule table 118 shows a rule for calculating the cost of the countermeasure candidate (i.e., estimating a countermeasure cost required for each countermeasure candidate of).)
Karacali-Akyamac does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Michihiro teaches determining the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost. (Paras. 145, 166) (The countermeasure execution program 1105 is executed by the CPU 103 and searches for a countermeasure candidate having a predetermined allowable cost… If a countermeasure candidate that satisfies the condition exists, the measure execution program 1105 proceeds… Selection criteria for security measures are appropriately set according to the situation of the user… In the security measure whose cost and influence degree are within the allowable range, the measure with the smallest cost or the smallest influence degree may be selected.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include cost calculations of the countermeasures of Michihiro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in order to provide the most cost-effective countermeasure (See Para. 145 of Michihiro “the measure with the smallest cost … may be selected”).
In regard to claim 11, Karacali-Akyamac discloses the system comprising: one or more processors; and the one or more processors perform a method (Para. 20, 25) (an exemplary system 100 includes a general-purpose computing device 100, including a processing unit (CPU or processor) 120… The system 100 shown in FIG. 1 can practice all or part of the recited methods).
Karacali-Akyamac discloses the system comprising: one or more storage devices, wherein the one or more storage devices store countermeasure cost information (Paras. 18, 26-27) (…the countermeasure candidate generation program 109 newly provides the security countermeasure function… The storage device 105 stores data (information) (i.e., one or more storage devices) used by the CPU 103, more …. a countermeasure candidate generation rule table 117, a cost calculation rule table 118 (i.e., countermeasure cost information).)
Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro teaches the remaining limitations of claim 11, as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claims 2 and 12, Karacali-Akyamac discloses wherein the system/the one or more processors predicts the service quality degradation based on at least one of a state of communication for providing the service and a state of the service provision device (Para. 27) (The system 304 receives network packet level measurements 302. The system 304 uses the network packet level measurements 302 (i.e., state of communication for providing the service) to accurately predict video quality. Based on these measurements 302, the system can immediately or a short time thereafter implement corresponding counter-measures 306 if degradation is detected).
In regard to claims 3 and 13, Karacali-Akyamac discloses the method further comprising, by the system: predicting service quality degradation in a service being executed (Abst.; Para. 27) (Throughout the transmission the system continues measuring and monitoring the video quality in real-time …The system 304 uses the network packet level measurements 302 to accurately predict video quality. Based on these measurements 302, the system can immediately or a short time thereafter implement corresponding counter-measures 306 if degradation is detected (i.e., predicting service quality degradation in a service being executed).)
Karacali-Akyamac does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Michihiro teaches wherein the countermeasure cost information indicates a relation between the countermeasure candidate and the cost for each service, (Paras. 18, 26-27, 43) (…The cost calculation rule table 118 shows a rule for calculating the cost of the countermeasure candidate…The cost calculation rule table 118 shows a rule for calculating the cost of the countermeasure candidate. The cost calculation rule table 118 stores the cost 403, for example, the cost required for the past security measures, the cost value per unit function calculated from the total of the security countermeasure function, and the like (i.e., indicates a relation between the countermeasure candidate and the cost for each service).)
Karacali-Akyamac does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Michihiro teaches estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, the countermeasure cost of the service being executed (Paras. 1-2, 18, 22, 26-27, 40-44) (the countermeasure candidate generation program 109 newly provides the security countermeasure function… . By executing the cost calculation program 110, the cost of the security countermeasure candidate is calculated (i.e., estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, the counter measure cost of the service being executed). The cost calculation rule table 118 shows a rule for calculating the cost of the countermeasure candidate (i.e., estimating the countermeasure cost).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include cost calculations of the countermeasures of Michihiro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in order to provide the most cost-effective countermeasure (See Para. 145 of Michihiro “the measure with the smallest cost … may be selected”).
In regard to claims 4 and 14, Karacali-Akyamac discloses wherein the system stores countermeasure priority information indicating a countermeasure priority for each service (Para. 37) (…system 100 monitors multiple streams and detects various forms of degradation, prior to implementing any single counter-measure the system 100 can prioritize the forms of degradation detected, followed by implementing the corrective counter-measures by priority).
Karacali-Akyamac discloses predicting service quality degradation in a plurality of services being executed; and determining, based on the countermeasure priority information, a service being executed as a countermeasure. (Paras. 27-29) (The system 304 receives network packet level measurements 302. The system 304 uses the network packet level measurements 302 to accurately predict video quality. Based on these measurements 302, the system can immediately or a short time thereafter implement corresponding counter-measures 306 if degradation is detected.)
Claims 5-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0303313 to Gargaro et al. (hereinafter “Gargaro”).
In regard to claims 5 and 15, as discussed above in claims 1 and 11, Karacali-Akyamac discloses that the item is a quality, and Michihiro teaches determining the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost. Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches wherein the system stores damage cost estimation information indicating a relation between a service item and an estimated damage cost (Paras. 45-48) (For example, the risk database 325 has an entry for each asset and an entry for each risk; the entry of each asset indicates its value, and the entry of each risk indicates the roles/rules causing the risk, the assets that would be damaged by its occurrence and the corresponding exposure factor.)
Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches the method further comprising, by the system: estimating, based on the damage cost estimation information, a damage cost of the item for which the service quality degradation is predicted (Paras. 45-48) (Countermeasure manager 330 manages the countermeasures for mitigating the risks. In general, a countermeasure is an action taken to reduce the probability and/or the threat of one or more risks (i.e., which the service quality degradation is predicted)… The risk may be quantified by an impact of its occurrence in the information technology system (in terms of either lost money…) (i.e., estimating, based on the damage cost estimation information, a damage cost of the item).)
Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches determining the countermeasure based on the estimated damage cost (Paras. 45-48) (…a countermeasure manager 330 manages the countermeasures for mitigating the risks. In general, a countermeasure is an action taken to reduce the probability and/or the threat of one or more risks…The countermeasure may be quantified by its cost (in terms of either money or any other burden, such as man hours, processing power and so on) (i.e., based on the estimated damage cost).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the countermeasure manager and risk quantification based on impact of its occurrence in the information technology system of Gargaro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro in order to provide more accurate countermeasure assessments.
In regard to claim 6, Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches wherein the damage cost estimation information indicates a relation between a degree of service quality degradation and a damage cost (Paras. 45-48) (The risk may be quantified by an impact of its occurrence in the information technology system (in terms of either lost money or recovery effort, such as man hours, processing power and so on). For example, the impact is defined by a loss expectancy of each asset (i.e., resource having a value for a corresponding organization) being damaged, given by the product of an exposure factor (measuring a subjective percentage of the damage to the asset) by a value of the asset.)
Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches the method further comprising, by the system: estimating the damage cost based on a degree of predicted service quality degradation with reference to the damage cost estimation information (Paras. 45-48) (The risk may be quantified by an impact of its occurrence in the information technology system (in terms of either lost money or recovery effort, such as man hours, processing power and so on). For example, the impact is defined by a loss expectancy of each asset (… resource having a value for a corresponding organization) being damaged, given by the product of an exposure factor (i.e., a degree of predicted service quality degradation with reference to the damage cost estimation information).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the risk quantification based on impact of its occurrence in the information technology system of Gargaro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro in order to provide more accurate countermeasure assessments.
In regard to claim 7, Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches wherein the system stores influence range information indicating a relation between an influence range of service quality degradation and an estimated damage cost (Paras. 45-48, 50) (The risk may be quantified by an impact of its occurrence in the information technology system (in terms of either lost money…). For example, the impact is defined by a loss expectancy of each asset (… resource having a value for a corresponding organization) being damaged, given by the product of an exposure factor (measuring a subjective percentage of the damage to the asset) (i.e., between an influence range of service quality degradation) by a value of the asset…
Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches the method further comprising, by the system: estimating the damage cost based on an influence range of predicted service quality degradation with reference to the influence range information (Paras. 45-48, 50) (The risk may be quantified by an impact of its occurrence in the information technology system (in terms of either lost money…). For example, the impact is defined by a loss expectancy of each asset (… resource having a value for a corresponding organization) being damaged, given by the product of an exposure factor (measuring a subjective percentage of the damage to the asset) (i.e., based on an influence range of predicted service quality degradation with reference to the influence range information) by a value of the asset…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the risk quantification based on impact of its occurrence in the information technology system of Gargaro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro in order to provide more accurate countermeasure assessments.
In regard to claim 8, as discussed above, Karacali-Akyamac teaches quality item. Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches wherein the system increases a damage cost of an item for which service quality degradation is not permitted (Paras. 45-46, 50) (The risk may be quantified by an impact of its occurrence in the information technology system (in terms of either lost money…). For example, the impact is defined by a loss expectancy of each asset (… resource having a value for a corresponding organization) being damaged, given by the product of an exposure factor (measuring a subjective percentage of the damage to the asset) by a value of the asset…. he security parameters relate to the risks of the access control system and/or to the countermeasures for mitigating them. The weight of the trigger policy is a number (for example, from 0 to 1) (i.e., service quality degradation is not permitted).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the risk quantification based on impact of its occurrence in the information technology system of Gargaro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro in order to provide more accurate countermeasure assessments.
In regard to claim 9, Karacali-Akyamac discloses the method comprising, by the system: predicting service quality degradation in a service being executed (Abst.; Para. 27) (Throughout the transmission the system continues measuring and monitoring the video quality in real-time …The system 304 uses the network packet level measurements 302 to accurately predict video quality (i.e., predicting service quality degradation in a service being executed).)
Karacali-Akyamac does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Michihiro teaches wherein the countermeasure cost information indicates a relation between the countermeasure candidate and the cost for each service (Paras. 26-27; and 43-44) (The storage device 105 stores data (information) used by the CPU 103, more specifically, an attack method generation rule table 116, a countermeasure candidate generation rule table 117, a cost calculation rule table 118 (i.e., wherein the countermeasure cost information indicates a relation between the countermeasure candidate and the cost for each service)…. The cost calculation rule table 118 shows a rule for calculating the cost of the countermeasure candidate).)
Karacali-Akyamac does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Michihiro teaches estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, the countermeasure cost of the service being executed (Paras. 1-2, 18, 22, 26-27, 40-44) (countermeasure device… the countermeasure candidate generation program 109 newly provides the security countermeasure function… . By executing the cost calculation program 110, the cost of the security countermeasure candidate is calculated (i.e., estimating, based on the countermeasure cost information, the countermeasure cost of the service being executed). The cost calculation rule table 118 shows a rule for calculating the cost of the countermeasure candidate.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include cost calculations of the countermeasures of Michihiro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in order to provide the most cost-effective countermeasure.
Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Gargaro teaches the damage cost estimation information indicates a relation between the service quality item and the estimated damage cost for each service, and estimating, based on the damage cost estimation information, the damage cost of the service being executed (Paras. 45-48) (…a countermeasure manager 330 manages the countermeasures for mitigating the risks. In general, a countermeasure is an action taken to reduce the probability and/or the threat of one or more risks…The countermeasure may be quantified by its cost (in terms of either money or any other burden, such as man hours, processing power and so on) (i.e., a relation between the service quality item and the estimated damage cost for each service; estimating, based on the damage cost estimation information, the damage cost of the service being executed)….
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include risk quantification based on impact of its occurrence in the information technology system of Gargaro with the quality degradation countermeasures of Karacali-Akyamac in view of Michihiro in order to provide more accurate countermeasure assessments.
In regard to claim 10, Karacali-Akyamac discloses wherein the system determines the countermeasure based on a service quality degradation occurrence probability of the countermeasure candidate (Abst.; Para. 27) (Throughout the transmission the system continues measuring and monitoring the video quality in real-time …The system 304 uses the network packet level measurements 302 to accurately predict video quality. Based on these measurements 302, the system can immediately or a short time thereafter implement corresponding counter-measures 306 if degradation is detected (i.e., based on a service quality degradation occurrence probability of the countermeasure candidate).)
Prior Art
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0409289 to Yamagoe et al. (hereinafter “Yamagoe”). Yamagoe discloses selecting a countermeasure with which the operator load is minimized in the range of the service quality specification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on Monday – Friday 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights