DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-23 are pending. Claims 11 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-23 are rejected.
The instant application claims priority to provisional application No. 62/564,247 filed on 09/27/2017.
The instant application claims priority to provisional application No. 62/588,114 filed on 11/17/2017.
The instant application claims priority to provisional application No. 62/588,179 filed on 11/17/2017.
The instant application claims priority to provisional application No. 62/588,190 filed on 11/17/2017.
The instant application claims priority to provisional application No. 62/611,962 filed on 12/29/2017.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-23 are allowable over the prior art of record.
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, 3-4, 6-11, 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (All Claims)
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10 are directed to computer readable media, claims 11 and 13-18 are directed to a method, and claims 19-23 are directed to a management cloud computing system comprising one or more processors and storage media. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claims 1, 11, and 19)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are abstract ideas:
identifying the first object entity representing the first device from a first device identifier in the first input timeseries; is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
identifying the data entity from the second relational object indicating the relationship between the first object entity and the data entity; is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claims 1, 11, and 19)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s)):
receiving first raw data from a first device of a plurality of physical devices, the first raw data including one or more first data points collected by the first device; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
storing first input timeseries according to the one or more first data points; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
accessing a database of interconnected smart entities, the smart entities comprising object entities representing each of the plurality of physical devices and data entities representing stored data, the smart entities being interconnected by: is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation is also directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as identified in MPEP 2106.05(h).
a first relational object that semantically define a relationship between a first object entity and a second object entity by storing a first natural language description and an indication of a direction for the first natural language description to apply between the first object entity and the second object entity; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
a second relational object that semantically defines a relationship between the first object entity and a data entity by storing a second natural language description and an indication of a direction for the second natural language description to apply between the first object entity and the data entity; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
storing the first input timeseries in the data entity. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B (Claims 1, 11, and 19)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s)):
receiving first raw data from a first device of a plurality of physical devices, the first raw data including one or more first data points collected by the first device; is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);”.
storing first input timeseries according to the one or more first data points; is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”.
accessing a database of interconnected smart entities, the smart entities comprising object entities representing each of the plurality of physical devices and data entities representing stored data, the smart entities being interconnected by: is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);”.
a first relational object that semantically define a relationship between a first object entity and a second object entity by storing a first natural language description and an indication of a direction for the first natural language description to apply between the first object entity and the second object entity; when re-evaluated under step 2B, this claim is further directed to elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional such as electronic recordkeeping and storing and retrieving information as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”.
a second relational object that semantically defines a relationship between the first object entity and a data entity by storing a second natural language description and an indication of a direction for the second natural language description to apply between the first object entity and the data entity; when re-evaluated under step 2B, this claim is further directed to elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional such as electronic recordkeeping and storing and retrieving information as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”.
storing the first input timeseries in the data entity. is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”.
This analysis applies to all independent claims.
The dependent claims 3-4, 6-11, and 13-23 recite mental steps thus are not eligible under 101.
Claims 3, 13, and 21 further clarify what the object entities comprise. These claims further add a static attribute, a dynamic attribute, and a behavioral attribute which merely clarifies the object entities. These clarifications and further detail do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 21 fall under the same analysis as the independent claims.
Claims 4, 14, 15, and 22 further recites the dynamic attribute and ties it to the first input timeseries or further clarifies the dynamic characteristics. This is similar to claims 3, 13, and 21. Therefore, claims 4, 14, 15, and 22 fall under the same analysis as claims 3, 13, and 21.
Claims 6, 16, and 20 further add a timestamp and an identifier. These are similar to aspects of the independent claim such as the first device identifier. The timestamp and identifier can be used to identify certain elements of the timeseries. Therefore, claims 6, 16, and 20 fall under the same analysis as the independent claims.
Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, and 23 contain further identifying steps. These identifying steps are mental processes similar to the ones identified for the independent claims. These claims add second and third entities and additional relationships and workflows. Therefore claims 7, 8, 17, 18, and 23 fall under the same analysis as the independent claims.
Claim 9 is directed to calculations. These calculations are mental processes since an individual could perform calculations mentally. Therefore, claim 9 falls under the same analysis as claim 8.
Claim 10 is directed to receiving measurements. This aspect is similar to the independent claims where data is received which is a generic computer function. Updating the timeseries is merely updating stored data. Therefore, claim 10 falls under the same analysis as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A detailed explanation is provided below.
On pages 9-18, Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees. The independent claims recite two limitations which are directed to identifying. A human mind can perform these identifying limitations. A human mind can identify an object entity representing the first device from an identifier and identify the data entity from the second relational object. The claim does not provide enough detail that would it put outside of something that the human mind could perform. Therefore, the claims do recite an abstract idea.
On pages 12-16, Applicant argues against the analysis under step 2A Prong Two, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues against the extra-solution activity nature of the claims providing an example of a step of obtaining information about credit card transaction which is recited as a part of a claimed processing analyzing and manipulating the gathered information. This example is similar to the claimed invention where data is processed as a part of the claimed identifying. The limitations of receiving, storing, accessing, and defining the relationships are similar to the steps of obtaining information about a transaction. Once these data gathering steps are performed, the identifying limitations are then performed after. Therefore, the claims are similar to the example and are directed to extra-solution activities. Applicant further argues that the claims improve the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field by providing a specific data structure, the Examiner disagrees. The claims do not provide enough detail on the specifics of how the data is stored or how it improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The claims merely appear to be improvements over the prior art of record rather than improvements to the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.
On pages 16-18, Applicant argues against the analysis under Step 2B, the Examiner disagrees. It is not clear how these provide an inventive concept. There does not appear to be an inventive step, the claims are merely receiving data, storing a representation using relationships, identifying (mental process) and storing data points. The limitations have not described what happens with the stored or identified data points. Therefore, there does not appear to be an inventive step. The claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pavlin et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0321043 (hereinafter Pavlin). Pavlin teaches relations between algorithm variables and data-objects (Paragraph 53). Pavlin further teaches smart appliances, devices, and databases (Paragraph 95). This shows that the claimed invention and Pavlin are analogous art as both are directed to smart devices.
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 DUSTIN D EYERS whose telephone number is (408)918-7562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571)270-1698. 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.
/DUSTIN D EYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights