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 .
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12-15, 17, 18 and 20 have been amended. Examiner notes that claim 18 is labeled as being amended but there does not appear to be any changes with the claim. Claims 21 and 22 are new. Claims 4 and 11 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 are pending.
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, 5-10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-16 are drawn to a system for generating activity score data objects and composite score data objects, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 17-19 are drawn to a method for generating activity score data objects and composite score data objects which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 20-22 is drawn to a non-transitory medium for generating activity score data objects and composite score data objects which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-16 (Group I) recites a system comprising:
one or more processors (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it); and
one or more memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it):
rendering a user interface (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it) that comprises (i) a set of category icons, (ii) a composite score indicator, and (ii) an activity icon that is rendered responsive to a selection of a category icon of the set of category icons;
prior to detecting a user action, transmitting a database query comprising a client identifier, associated with a client device, to a server to receive (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity) a client profile data object;
storing the client profile data object within one or more memories local to the client device (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity);
rendering (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it) a first update to the composite score indicator via the user interface (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it) based at least in part on the client profile data object, wherein:
the user interface, subsequent to the first update, comprises (a) an activity category score indicator that comprises a category dominator indicator and a category numerator indicator, (b) a gap indicated based at least in part on a health category score indicator, and (c) the activity score data object which is dependent on the category denominator indicatory, the category numerator indicator, and the gap indicator; and
the composite score indicator is determined via one or more processing operations performed at the client device to reduce (a) a likelihood of network failure at the client device and (b) a number of communications required between the client device and the server to generate the composite score indicator; and
responsive to detecting the user action performed rendering (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it) in near-real time with the user action a second update to the composite score indicator via the user interface based on the user action.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mathematical concept (such as the determining of composite score indicator and other indicators or scores) and/or certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the mathematical concept and/or method of organizing human activity are underlined and deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 17-19 and 20-22 is substantially similar as the abstract idea for Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-16 (Group I), because the only difference is the claims are directed towards different statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-16, 18-19 and 21-22 include other limitations, for example Claims 2, 18 and 21 recite determining, at the client device, a point indicator based at least in part on the activity score data object and on a category indicator, wherein the point indicator is associated with the category indicator and a type indicator, and the category indicator corresponds to the category icon of the set of category icons of the user interface, Claims 3, 19 and 22 recite wherein, when determining the point indicator, the one or more memories and the processor-executable instructions are configured to, with the at one or more processors, cause the client device to: determine the point indicator based at least in part on the type indicator, Claim 5 recites wherein the health category score indicator is associated with the category indicator, Claim 6 recites wherein the activity category score indicator is based at least in part on the health category score indicator, Claim 7 recites wherein, the gap indicator is further based at least in part on a health category maximum indicator associated with the category indicator; and when generating the activity category score indicator the one or more processors are further caused to: determine a decay indicator based at least in part on the gap indicator and at least one adjustable indicator, Claim 8 recites wherein the point indicator is associated with the category indicator and the type indicator, and the one or more memories and the processor-executable instructions are configured to, with the one or more processors, cause the client device to: determine a type denominator indicator associated with the type indicator based at least in part on the point indicator, a maximum activity indicator associated with the type indicator, and the decay indicator; and determine a type numerator indicator associated with the type indicator based at least in part on the point indicator, an actual activity indicator associated with the type indicator and the client profile data object, and the decay indicator, Claim 9 recites wherein the one or more memories and the processor-executable instructions are configured to, with the one or more processors, cause the client device to: generate an activity type score indicator based at least in part on the type denominator indicator and the type numerator indicator, wherein the activity type score indicator is associated with the type indicator and the category indicator, Claim 10 recites wherein the one or more memories and the processor-executable instructions are configured to, with the one or more processors, cause the client device to: aggregate the type denominator indicator and the numerator indicator to generate the activity category score indicator, wherein the type denominator indicator and the type numerator indicator are associated with the category indicator, Claim 12 recites receiving an activity update data object associated with the client identifier, wherein the activity update data object comprises an updated actual activity indicator associated with the category indicator and the type indicator; in response to receiving the activity update data object: generating an updated type numerator indicator and an updated type denominator indicator associated with the type indicator based at least in part on the updated actual activity indicator; generating an updated activity category score indicator associated with the category indicator based at least in part on the updated type numerator indicator and the updated type denominator indicator; generating an updated activity score data object based at least in part on the updated activity category score indicator; and generating an updated composite score data object based at least in part on the updated activity score data object, Claim 13 recites wherein the composite score indicator is associated with a composite score data object creation time indicator, and the operations further comprise: determining an activity update time interval indicator; and in response to determining that a time period between a composite score indicator creation time indicator and a current time indicator satisfies the activity update time interval indicator: determining an updated actual activity indicator associated with at least one of the category indicator or the type indicator; generating an updated type numerator indicator and an updated type denominator indicator associated with the type indicator based at least in part on the updated actual activity indicator; generating an updated activity category score indicator associated with the category indicator based at least in part on the updated type numerator indicator and the updated type denominator indicator; generating an updated activity score data object based at least in part on the updated activity category score indicator; and generating an updated composite score data object based at least in part on the updated activity score data object, Claim 14 recites wherein the operations further comprise performing at least one score-based action based at least in part on the composite score indicator and the client profile indicator, wherein, when performing the at least one score-based action, the operations comprise: rendering, on the user interface displayed on the client device associated with the client identifier (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), the composite score indicator, Claim 15 recites wherein, when performing the at least one score-based action, generating at least one activity recommendation data object based at least in part on the composite score indicator and the client profile data object; and rendering, on the user interface displayed on the client device associated with the client identifier (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), the at least one activity recommendation data object and Claim 16 recites generating the at least one activity recommendation data object based further on the client preference indicator, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 17 and 20.
Furthermore, Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of one or more processors, one or memories, a user interface, client computing device, and at least one non-transitory memory comprising a computer program code and rendering data on a user interface, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0005], [0041], [0051] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, such as transmitting a database query and storing the client profile data object within one or more memories (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity) see MPEP 2106.05(g);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0005], [0041], [0051] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. one processor, non-transitory memory, processor, computer apparatus, computing entity and at least one non-transitory memory comprising a computer program code and a user interface) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e., transmitting and storing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activity, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention transmits database queries;
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 – similarly, the current invention stores the client profile data object within one or more memories.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-11, 12-16, 18-19 and 21-22 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly represent no more than those additional elements already recited in the independent claims, such as the user of the user interface or client device.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submits that the claims as amended are not directed to an abstract idea and that they provide technical improvements (Remarks, pages 12- 20).
Applicant asserts that “the claims recite an improved distributed user activitys monitoring system that reduces reliance on client-server communications by generating activity scores locally, thereby enhancing network efficiency and reliability (Remarks, page 12).” There is not apparent technical problem regarding generating the activity category score, gap indicator or the composite score. Calculating the score locally as opposed to sending the data to be analyzed does not improve any of the devices involved as they are simply recited at an “apply it” level. There is no nexus between the alleged technical improvement and the claimed invention.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant asserts that the “rendering updates to a user interface, transmitting a database query, and storing a client profile data object” are operations “that enable the system to more efficiently provide data to a client device by reducing unnecessary data transmissions and improving the timeliness of data delivery. Again, doing less of something (like sending less data), does not result in a technical improvement. The user interface is not improved from displaying the results of the analysis. The transmitting and storing of data are recognized in the MPEP as being well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Applicant asserts that a “’client profile data object’ is a computer data structure, not a human activity” and “does not recite any economic principle, commercial/legal interaction, or interpersonal behavior (Remarks, page 15).” The data objects include data associated with a human and their activity. These are rules used to determine the claimed scores. The fact that they are on a computer does not make them any less abstract. Examiner maintains that the computer is simply used to implement the recited abstract idea.
Applicant continues to assert that the claims do not recite mathematical concepts (Remarks, page 16). Determining/calculating scores is using mathematical concepts. It would be inconsistent with the instant disclosure to not interpret the claims as reciting mathematical concepts. The specification details how the scores are calculated with many examples, see at least paragraphs [0224-0278].
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, it is determined whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Examiner maintains that the additional elements are recited at an apply it level or recite insignificant extra-solution activity. The user interface is not improved by displaying the results of the analysis on it.
Applicant asserts that “offloading computation from remote servers reduces network usage and server-side processing demands, and therefore improving scalability of the overall system” and “[r]educing communication overhead between client devices and remote servers is a well-recognized technical challenge in distributed computing systems (Remarks, page 17).” Examiner reiterates that doing less of something, including sending less messages, is not a technical improvement. Additionally, the fact that it is being done locally as opposed to centrally, does not improve the computer itself, rather it simply shifts the burden to a different device. For example, if Person A decides to use Person B’s phone all day for directions on a road trip, Person A’s device (or its battery) is not improved, it just was not used as the processing burden shifted to Person B’s phone. Furthermore, not doing something (sending and/or receiving data) is not a technical improvement. Examiner maintains that neither the claims nor the specification appear to be directed towards solving a technical problem. Furthermore, the claimed invention does not appear to be directed towards solving a technical problem.
The additional elements indicated in the above rejection, both alone or in combination, do not result in a practical application as there is not technical improvement that results from the claimed invention.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant did not specify any arguments as to why the claims would be eligible. However, the additional elements are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting and storing data) are explicitly listed under “Elements that courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, convention activity in particular fields” of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and the other additional elements are recited at an “apply it” level as the claims simply require a computer with a user interface to implement the abstract idea.
Examiner maintains the claims 1, 17 and 20, and their respective dependents, are directed towards non-statutory subject matter and remain rejected under § 101.
Conclusion
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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights