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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the limitations ‘one or more computers and one or more storage devices, a component metadata repository’, the claim recites mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations.
The limitation ‘generate a plurality of component scores, each component score generated for each component of a plurality of components, the plurality of components comprising a plurality of internal components and a plurality of external components and each component of the plurality of components dependent upon at least one internal component and at least one external component; generate the component score based at least in part on the one or more component metadata values extracted from the component metadata vector, wherein generating the component score comprises determining whether each component metadata value satisfies a corresponding component label criterion and applying the associated weight value only when the criterion is satisfied’ is a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘one or more computers and one or more storage devices, a component metadata repository’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘retrieve a component metadata vector associated with a component identifier, the component identifier associated with the component, and the component metadata vector comprising a plurality of records associated with the component each comprising a component metadata record identifier and a component metadata value, and wherein the component metadata vector further comprises a plurality of component labels, each component label associated with a weight value; based at least in part on a first component score type of a plurality of component score types, extract one or more component metadata values from the component metadata vector, wherein the first component score type defines the one or more component metadata values required from the component metadata vector for generation of a component score for the component and associated with the first component score type; generate a component score interface comprising instructions for rendering a component scorecard comprising a plurality of component score interface elements each representing a respective component score for a respective component of the plurality of components and one or more additional component score interface elements representing one or more additional component scores for the respective component, wherein the one or more additional component scores are different from the component score, and wherein the component score interface is configured for graphical rendering via a display device of a first client device; and transmit the component score interface to the first client device, wherein the component score interface provides real-time visualization of operational health status for each component of the plurality of components enabling identification of components requiring corrective action before system failures occur’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra-solution actions are gathering information and displaying information.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations ‘responsive to detecting that a component score falls below a component score threshold, automatically perform one or more tasks to correct a cause of the component score failing to satisfy the component score threshold, thereby maintaining operational health of the multi-component system’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra-solution actions are merely performing actions to correct an error that has caused the component score to fail to satisfy the component score threshold.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘updating the first component score in response to detection of a change in one or more of the one or more component metadata values required from the component metadata vector’ is a mathematical calculation.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘wherein a component score type is one or more of a security score, compliance score, health score, operational health score, readiness score, reliability score, or a custom score’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘wherein the first component score type is associated with a first metadata values set required from the component metadata vector for generation of the first component score’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘generate the component score interface in response to receiving a component score interface request from the first client device’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘responsive to detecting that a first component score is below a component score threshold associated with the first component score type, transmit a component score notification to a second client device’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation ‘responsive to detecting that the first component score is below a component score threshold associated with the first component score type, activate a corrective action associated with a first component associated with [[the]] a first component identifier’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation ‘generate a second component score interface comprising instructions for rendering a plurality of component score interface elements each representing unique component scores associated with the component, the second component score interface configured for graphical rendering via the display device of the first client device; and transmit the second component score interface to the first client device’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation ‘wherein the one or more component metadata values of the first component score comprise one or more of a percentage, count, or duration’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 10, with the exception of the limitations ‘processing circuitry and a component metadata repository’, the claim recites mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations.
The limitation ‘generating a plurality of component scores, each component score generated for each component of a plurality of components, the plurality of components comprising a plurality of internal components and a plurality of external components and each component of the plurality of components dependent upon at least one internal component and at least one external component; generating the component score based at least in part on the one or more component metadata values extracted from the component metadata vector, wherein generating the component score comprises determining whether each component metadata value satisfies a corresponding component label criterion and applying the associated weight value only when the criterion is satisfied’ is a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘processing circuitry and a component metadata repository, using the processing circuitry’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘retrieving a component metadata vector associated with a component identifier, the component identifier associated with the component, and the component metadata vector comprising a plurality of records associated with the component each comprising a component metadata record identifier and a component metadata value, and wherein the component metadata vector further comprises a plurality of component labels, each component label associated with a weight value; based at least in part on a first component score type of a plurality of component score types, extracting one or more component metadata values from the component metadata vector, wherein the first component score type defines the one or more component metadata values required from the component metadata vector for generation of a component score for the component and associated with the first component score type; generating a component score interface comprising instructions for rendering a component scorecard comprising a plurality of component score interface elements each representing a respective component score for a respective component of the plurality of components and one or more additional component score interface elements representing one or more additional component scores for the respective component, wherein the one or more additional component scores are different from the component score, and wherein the component score interface is configured for graphical rendering via a display device of a first client device; and transmitting the component score interface to the first client device, wherein the component score interface provides real-time visualization of operational health status for each component of the plurality of components enabling identification of components requiring corrective action before system failures occur’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra-solution actions are gathering information and displaying information.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations ‘responsive to detecting that a component score falls below a component score threshold, automatically perform one or more tasks to correct a cause of the component score failing to satisfy the component score threshold, thereby maintaining operational health of the multi-component system’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra-solution actions are merely performing actions to correct an error that has caused the component score to fail to satisfy the component score threshold.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation ‘updating the first component score in response to detection of a change in one or more of the one or more component metadata values required from the component metadata vector’ is a mathematical calculation.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation ‘wherein a component score type is one or more of a security score, compliance score, health score, operational health score, readiness score, reliability score, or a custom score’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘wherein the first component score type is associated with a first metadata values set required from the component metadata vector for generation of the first component score’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘generate the component score interface in response to receiving a component score interface request from the first client device’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation ‘responsive to detecting that a first component score is below a component score threshold associated with the first component score type, transmit a component score notification to a second client device’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation ‘responsive to detecting that a first component score is below a component score threshold associated with the first component score type, activate a corrective action associated with a first component associated with [[the]] a first component identifier’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation ‘generate a second component score interface comprising instructions for rendering a plurality of component score interface elements each representing unique component scores associated with the component, the second component score interface configured for graphical rendering via the display device of the first client device; and transmit the second component score interface to the first client device’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation ‘wherein the one or more component metadata values of the first component score comprise one or more of a percentage, count, or duration’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 19, with the exception of the limitations ‘A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers; a component metadata repository’, the claim recites mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations.
The limitation ‘generate a plurality of component scores, each component score generated for each component of a plurality of components, the plurality of components comprising a plurality of internal components and a plurality of external components and each component of the plurality of components dependent upon at least one internal component and at least one external component; generate the component score based at least in part on the one or more component metadata values extracted from the component metadata vector, wherein generating the component score comprises determining whether each component metadata value satisfies a corresponding component label criterion and applying the associated weight value only when the criterion is satisfied’ is a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers; a component metadata repository’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘retrieve a component metadata vector associated with a component identifier, the component identifier associated with the component, and the component metadata vector comprising a plurality of records associated with the component each comprising a component metadata record identifier and a component metadata value, and wherein the component metadata vector further comprises a plurality of component labels, each component label associated with a weight value; based at least in part on a first component score type of a plurality of component score types, extract one or more component metadata values from the component metadata vector, wherein the first component score type defines the one or more component metadata values required from the component metadata vector for generation of a component score for the component and associated with the first component score type; generate a component score interface comprising instructions for rendering a component scorecard comprising a plurality of component score interface elements each representing a respective component score for a respective component of the plurality of components and one or more additional component score interface elements representing one or more additional component scores for the respective component, wherein the one or more additional component scores are different from the component score, and wherein the component score interface is configured for graphical rendering via a display device of a first client device; and transmit the component score interface to the first client device, wherein the component score interface provides real-time visualization of operational health status for each component of the plurality of components enabling identification of components requiring corrective action before system failures occur’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra-solution actions are gathering information and displaying information.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations ‘responsive to detecting that a component score falls below a component score threshold, automatically perform one or more tasks to correct a cause of the component score failing to satisfy the component score threshold, thereby maintaining operational health of the multi-component system’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra-solution actions are merely performing actions to correct an error that has caused the component score to fail to satisfy the component score threshold.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘update the component score in response to detection of a change in one or more of the one or more component metadata values required from the component metadata vector’ is a mathematical calculation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered. Concerning the 101 – abstract idea arguments around the Ollnova court case, the Federal Circuit stated that “Read as a whole, those limitations do not merely de scribe collecting and communicating data in the abstract. Instead, they recite a particular technique governing when and how information is transmitted within a network using a wireless automation device. The claim imposes timing constraints (polling and transmission intervals) and a conditional transmission trigger (outside a predetermined range) that together contribute to reducing the controller’s communications within the network.”. The claimed limitations of the current application do not disclose such limitations. The limitations in the current application do not have limits on when and how information is obtained. The current claims are only directed on how component scores are calculated, presenting the component score, and then perform a corrective action. Applicant’s arguments of the ‘a conditional trigger for applying weight values…’ is merely a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments of the ‘component metadata vector associated with a component identifier’, ‘a plurality of records’, and ‘a plurality of component labels, each component label associated with a weight value’, do not add significantly more. The addition of the new limitations reciting ‘automatic corrective action’ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem because the solution involves mathematical concepts to produce a component score that is presented in a graphical user interface and then performing a corrective action. This is an abstract idea. The citing by the Examiner of the claims disclosing ‘mathematical calculations’ is not an oversimplification. The claims clearly disclose mathematical calculations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights