DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication of February 28, 2025, Applicant, on June 26, 2025, amended claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 16-18, & 24. Claims 6, 8, 14, & 19 were previously canceled. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15-18, & 20-24 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
Applicant's amendments are not sufficient to overcome and render moot the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are set forth below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
As understood by Examiner, Applicant the combination of the features do not recite an abstract idea and provides multiple benefits as recited in the Application, and even assuming, arguendo, that the amended claims recite the Office's alleged abstract ideas of organizing human activity, mental processes, or both (Step 2A, Prong I), the amended claims integrate the alleged abstract ideas in a practical application because unlike the claims at issue in BASCOM, the currently pending claims are directed to generating hierarchy information using a specific technique (recursive query) and based on field information that is redundantly included in multiple hierarchy data structures, as explained in the Specification, the foregoing features of amended claim 1 improve the operation of a computer, including the automated generation of hierarchy information, and hence, claim 1, like the claims at issue in Enfish and unlike the claims at issue in BASCOM, unambiguously recites features that are directed to improving the performance of a computer. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106 (III), 2106.04, 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106 (III), 2106.05, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
As noted above, pursuant to prong 1 of Step 2A, the claims if the claims recite any limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within one of the enumerated groupings (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), then the claims recite an abstract idea under prong 1 of Step 2A. Here, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, aside from the generic computer components referred to by Applicant (i.e., the API, server, user device, memory, processor, electronic device, and computer-readable medium), for the reasons detailed below, the limitations referred to by Applicant recite fall within the mental process because the claims recite limitations that can be performed mentally.
Under prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1, and similarly claims 2-5, 7, 9-13, 15-18, & 20-23) recite “[a] method for managing member information associated with multiple organization hierarchies, the method comprising: … storing member information and a plurality of group models, each group model of the plurality of group models is associated with a different organization of a plurality of organizations, is based on a same data model pattern, the data model pattern including a plurality of data structures, each data structure of the plurality of data structures stored separately from other data structures of the plurality of data structures, the plurality of data structures including: multiple group data structures, where at least one group data structure of the multiple group data structures includes a first field, multiple group type data structures, each group type data structure linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures, multiple group member data structures, each group member data structure linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures, where at least one group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures includes a second field having a same value as the first field, and multiple member data structures, each member data structure linked to a group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures, and is associated with group hierarchy information for the group model, and the group hierarchy information for the group model indicates a hierarchy of the multiple group data structures of the group model, performing: generating first hierarchy information associated with a first group model of the plurality of group models based on a recursive query of the first group model …, the first hierarchy information indicating a hierarchical relationship between the multiple group data structures of the first group model, the first hierarchy information separate from the multiple group data structure of the first group model, wherein generating the first hierarchy information based on the recursive query of the first group model includes performing multiple queries based on a single input; receiving, from a user …, an access request to access the first group model, the first group model associated with a first organization of the plurality of organizations; and sending, to the user … and based on the access request …, the first hierarchy information for the first group model.” Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15-18, & 20-23, in view of the claim limitations, are directed to the abstract idea of managing member information of multiple organizations by storing member information, a plurality of group models, and member data organized in structures associated with organizations, generating hierarchy information associated with a group model based on queries, receiving an access request for the group model from a user, and sending the hierarchy information associated with the group model to the user.
A claim recites mental processes when the claim recites concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), wherein if the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the claim being practically performed in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is in the mental process category. 84 Fed. Reg. 52 n.14. Here, as a whole, in view of the claim limitations, including the litigations referred top by Applicant, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited storing member information, a plurality of group models, and member data organized in structures associated with organizations, generating hierarchy information associated with a group model based on recursive queries, receiving an access request for the group model from a user, and sending the hierarchy information associated with the group model to the user could all be reasonably interpreted as a human memorizing or storing and using judgment to organize information and models regarding the organization either in their mind or with a pen and paper, a human mentally using judgment to organize and generate hierarchy information in their mind or with a pen and paper based on multiple questions or requests, a human mentally receiving an access request from a user by observing the request or receiving the request using a pen and paper, and a human sending the information to the user either by manually communicating the information verbally or with a pen and paper, and thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Further, a claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity when the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Here, as a whole, each of the limitations above, including the limitations referred to by Applicant, manage the personal human behavior and interactions and relationships of people accessing information regarding the relationships and structure of an organization of people or groups within an organization based on the relationship of hierarchies of an organization of people and the personal human behavior and interactions of a human user submitting a request for access from the human user and providing access to the human user. Therefore, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity.
Specifically with respect to Applicant assertions that the limitations reciting the recursive query, these limitations can be performed mentally because a human can mentally use judgment to organize and generate hierarchy information in their mind or with a pen and paper based on multiple questions or requests, and thus, this feature is a mental process.
As noted above, pursuant to prong 1 of Step 2A, if the claims recite any limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within one of the enumerated groupings (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), then the claims recite an abstract idea under prong 1 of Step 2A. MPEP 2106 (III), 2106.04, 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Here, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, aside from the generic computer components of the server and the API implementing the steps, a human can perform the argued features by the human sending the information to the user either by manually communicating the information verbally or with a pen, the human mentally receiving an access request from a user by observing the request or receiving the request using a pen and paper, the human memorizing or storing and using judgment to organize information and models regarding the organization either in their mind or with a pen and paper, and the human mentally using judgment to organize and generate hierarchy information in their mind or with a pen and paper based on multiple observed or collected questions or requests and thus, the features referred to by Applicant recite a mental process.
The recited computer components (i.e., server, user device, API) performing the steps and functions are nothing more than generic computer components applying the recited abstract idea, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, since the claims are directed to a mental processes and certain method of organizing human activity, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Under the second prong of Step 2A and Step 2B the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea in the independent claims addressed by Applicant are the recitations of “[a] method … comprising: at a server,” “user device,” and at and via “application programming interface (API) of the server” in claim 1 and “[a] server comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled with the at least one processor and storing processor-readable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to,” “electronic device,” and at and via “application programming interface (API) of the server” in claim 9, and similarly claim 17; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. In addition, these features merely generally link the abstract idea to a technical field/environment, namely a generic computing environment performing operations.
As noted above, pursuant to prong 2 of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Aside from the recitation of “server” and “api,” the recited limitations referred to by Applicant (i.e., “by the server”) are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but rather, the features referred to by Applicant are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea for the reasons detailed above. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited generating the plurality of group models, the group data structure structures and group member data structures including fields having a same value, and performing the recursive query on the first group model could all be reasonably interpreted as a human memorizing or storing information and models regarding the organization either in their mind or with a pen and paper, a human mentally using judgement to generate hierarchy information in their mind or with a pen and paper in response to repeated questions or queries.
Therefore, the features referred to by Applicant recite an abstract mental process.
Furthermore, the alleged improvements are not necessarily directed to improving the functioning of the server or another computer or otherwise rooted in a computer technology, but rather, are directed to a mental process. “[A]n improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a). The benefits of performing these functions with a computer would be the same benefits as performing these functions mentally and/or with a pen and paper. Generating the plurality of group models, the group data structure structures and group member data structures including fields having a same value, and performing the recursive query on the first group model are not issues that arise specifically in nor are necessarily rooted in computers or other technology, but rather these functions rooted in the abstract mental process of observing, organizing, and storing information in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper that can and have been addressed mentally long before the advent of computers, and, thus, are not an improvement in computer technology.
“[A]n improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a). Mere automation of manual processes is not an improvement to computer technology. Id. Thus, the mere recitations of the generic computer components of a server, an API, and a user device to perform the recited abstract mental processes and certain method of organizing human activity is not an improvement to computer technology.
Moreover, as in the claims at issue in Electric Power Group, the present claims are not focused on a specific improvement in computers or any other technology, but instead on certain independently abstract ideas that simply invokes computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., et al., No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” Id. at 11.
Response to Arguments - Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the cited portions of Sayyarrodsari and Layton, individually or in combination, do not disclose "generating first hierarchy information associated with a first group model of the plurality of group models based on a recursive query of the first group model by the server, ... generating the first hierarchy information based on the recursive query of the first group model includes performing multiple queries based on a single input," as recited in amended claim 1,” and similarly recited in claims 9 and 17. These arguments now are moot in view of new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues “the cited portions of Sayyarrodsari and Layton, individually or in combination, do not disclose "multiple group data structures, where at least one group data structure of the multiple group data structures includes a first field . . . , multiple group member data structures, each group member data structure linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures, where at least one group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures includes a second field having a same value as the first field," as recited in amended claim 1,” and similarly recited in claims 9 and 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Sayyarrodsari, et al. (US 20210097456 A1), hereinafter Sayyarrodsari discloses that vertical-specific and application-specific templates 424 can be generated by an end user during development of the industrial device's control programming for storage on the device. [0099], [0101]-[0102].
Sayyarrodsari discloses “multiple group data structures, where at least one group data structure of the multiple group data structures includes a first field” in paragraphs [0151], [0155]-[0156], wherein relevant topics are defined that are associated with respective smart tags 422, and smart tags 422 configured for identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams from these smart tags 422 to allow different types of entities—end customers, OEMs, systems integrators, etc.—to share project or system runtime information. That is, here, multiple group data structures each with first fields are disclosed by at least topic labels/smart tags including identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams.
Further, Sayyarrodsari discloses “multiple group member data structures, each group member data structure linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures, where at least one group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures includes a second field having a same value as the first field” in paragraphs [0151], [0155]-[0156], data modeling templates 702/424 (i.e. multiple group member data structures) may define relevant topics associated with respective smart tags 422, and smart tags 422 or the data modeling templates 424 used to configure smart tags are configured for identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams from these smart tags 422 to allow different types of entities—end customers, OEMs, systems integrators, etc.—to share project or system runtime information (i.e. each of the multiple model templates (multiple group member data structures) are linked to the set of topic labels (multiple group data structures) of each model template), [0053], the model template define data items (e.g., sensor inputs, measured process variables, key performance indicators, machine operating modes, environmental factors, etc.) that are relevant to the business objective (i.e. each of the multiple model templates (multiple group member data structures) are linked to the set of data items, variables, KPIs, etc. (multiple group data structures) of each model template), [0065]-[0067], in fig. 5, smart gateway platform 302 can store a library 320 of model templates 424 (i.e. library of model templates - multiple group member data structures) that are each associated with a corresponding business objective or outcome, and each of the model templates 502 (i.e. multiple group member data structures) are classified within a industry or vertical, and under each industry or vertical (or sub-industry) is machine selections relevant to that industry or vertical, e.g., a Tire and Rubber sub-industry may be associated with several different machines that are typically associated with tire manufacture (e.g., Calendering, Extrusion, Curing Press, Tire Building Machine, Tire Picking Station, etc.), and each machine may be associated with one or more objectives.
Here, multiple group member data structures with a second field having the same value as the first are disclosed by the model templates defined with the particular relevant topic label and the model templates with smart tags configured with identities of the particular subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams. That is, the particular value of each topic label, smart tag, and permitted entity is a field of the group data structure disclosed by the topic labels, smart tags and permitted entity, and further, within the templates, the defined topic label, smart tag, and permitted entity of those templates are a field of the group member data structure disclosed by the templates.
Applicant “argues one of more of the dependent claims include one or more additional features not disclosed by the cited references and are thus further patentable for one or more additional reasons. For example, claims 5 and 17 are further allowable as they recite additional limitations not found in the art. To illustrate, claim 5 recites additional linking limitations between the data structures of the data model and claim 17 recites specific recursive query details. Thus, claims 5 and 17 are further allowable for at least these additional reasons.”
Examiner notes "[a] general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section." 37 CFR 1.111(b). Applicant's assertions are general allegations without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Further, claims 5 and 17 are taught by the combination of references for the reasons set forth below.
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 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15-18, & 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-5, 7, 9-13, 15-18, & 20-23) recite “[a] method for managing member information associated with multiple organization hierarchies, the method comprising: … storing member information and a plurality of group models, each group model of the plurality of group models is associated with a different organization of a plurality of organizations, is based on a same data model pattern, the data model pattern including a plurality of data structures, each data structure of the plurality of data structures stored separately from other data structures of the plurality of data structures, the plurality of data structures including: multiple group data structures, where at least one group data structure of the multiple group data structures includes a first field, multiple group type data structures, each group type data structure linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures, multiple group member data structures, each group member data structure linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures, where at least one group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures includes a second field having a same value as the first field, and multiple member data structures, each member data structure linked to a group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures, and is associated with group hierarchy information for the group model, and the group hierarchy information for the group model indicates a hierarchy of the multiple group data structures of the group model, performing: generating first hierarchy information associated with a first group model of the plurality of group models based on a recursive query of the first group model …, the first hierarchy information indicating a hierarchical relationship between the multiple group data structures of the first group model, the first hierarchy information separate from the multiple group data structure of the first group model, wherein generating the first hierarchy information based on the recursive query of the first group model includes performing multiple queries based on a single input; receiving, from a user …, an access request to access the first group model, the first group model associated with a first organization of the plurality of organizations; and sending, to the user … and based on the access request …, the first hierarchy information for the first group model.” Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15-18, & 20-23, in view of the claim limitations, are directed to the abstract idea of managing member information of multiple organizations by storing member information, a plurality of group models, and member data organized in structures associated with organizations, generating hierarchy information associated with a group model based on queries, receiving an access request for the group model from a user, and sending the hierarchy information associated with the group model to the user.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited storing member information, a plurality of group models, and member data organized in structures associated with organizations, generating hierarchy information associated with a group model based on queries, receiving an access request for the group model from a user, and sending the hierarchy information associated with the group model to the user could all be reasonably interpreted as a human memorizing or storing and using judgment to organize information and models regarding the organization either in their mind or with a pen and paper, a human mentally using judgment to organize and generate hierarchy information in their mind or with a pen and paper, a human mentally receiving an access request from a user by observing the request or receiving the request using a pen and paper, and a human sending the information to the user either by manually communicating the information verbally or with a pen and paper, and thus, the claims recite a mental process. Furthermore, as a whole, each of the limitations above manage the personal human behavior and interactions and relationships of people accessing information regarding the relationships and structure of people of an organization or groups within an organization based on the relationship of hierarchies of an organization and the personal human behavior and interactions of a human user submitting a request for access from the people and providing access to the people; therefore, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity.
With respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under prong two of Step 2A and 2B, dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, & 20-23 recite similar abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, but for the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under prong two of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, & 20-23 can be practically performed mentally by a human memorizing or storing, organizing, and selecting information and models regarding the organization with their mind and/or pen and paper and manages personal human behavior and relationships of groups in an organization and people requesting access to information regarding the relationships and structure of an organization or groups within an organization, and thus, the limitations of claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, & 20-23 recite a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, the claims recite an abstract idea under prong one of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] method … comprising: at a server,” “user device,” and at/via “application programming interface (API) of the server” in claim 1, “server” and “cached at memory of the user device “ in claims 2 & 3, “from the user device and via the API” in claim 7, “[a] server comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled with the at least one processor and storing processor-readable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to,” “electronic device,” and at/via “application programming interface (API) of the server” in claim 9, “server” in claim 11, “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising,” “electronic device,” and at and via “application programming interface (API) of the server” in claim 17, “the API” in claim 20, and “via the API from the user device,” “interface element,” “graphical user interface (GUI),” “on the GUI, as a dropdown menu … as a button on the GUI” in claim 21, and similarly claims 22 and 23; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. In addition, these features merely generally link the abstract idea to a technical field/environment, namely a generic computing environment. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, & 20-23 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s specification at [0270] (discussing the apparatus implementing the various logical blocks, modules and circuits herein may be implemented by a general purpose computer). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, & 20-23 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15-18, & 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 16, & 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayyarrodsari, et al. (US 20210097456 A1), hereinafter Sayyarrodsari, in view of Erler, et al. (US 20210182259 A1), hereinafter Erler, in further view of Layton, et al. (US 20220092028 A1), hereinafter Layton.
Regarding claim 1, Sayyarrodsari discloses a method for managing member information associated with multiple organization hierarchies, the method comprising ([0004], [0057]):
at a server storing member information and a plurality of group models ([0050], [0053], fig. 3, model configuration component 306 of a smart gateway platform 302 executed by computer(s) generates an analytic model based on a model template—selected from a library 320 of model templates 502 stored on memory 318—that encodes domain expertise relevant to the business objective, [0060], templates 424 and smart tags 422 are stored in memory 420 (e.g., in the industrial device's tag database together other defined data tags of other data types, [0030], an application running on a server and the server can be a component, and while the foregoing examples are directed to aspects of a component, the exemplified aspects or features also apply to a platform, [0163], systems and components described herein can include computer or network components such as servers), each group model of the plurality of group models:
is associated with a different organization of a plurality of organizations ([0092], the data is organized and aggregated in a model to reflect an industrial enterprise hierarchy within which the data sources reside, wherein the enterprise hierarchy may be part of the data modeling templates 702 and comprises layers representing (from highest to lowest) the industrial enterprise, the plant site, the production area within the site, etc. (i.e. each group model “is associated with a different organization of a plurality of organizations”), [0065]-[0067], each of the model templates 502 are classified within an industry or vertical, and under each industry or vertical classification (or sub-industry) is one or more machine selections relevant to that industry or vertical, e.g., a Tire and Rubber sub-industry may be associated with several different machines that are typically associated with tire manufacture (e.g., Calendering, Extrusion, Curing Press, Tire Building Machine, Tire Picking Station, etc.), 0151], [0155]-[0156], a data modeling template 702/424 may define relevant topics associated with respective smart tags 422, and the data modeling templates 424 are configured with topic labels configured for identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams from these smart tags 422 to allow different types of entities—end customers, OEMs, systems integrators, etc.—to share project or system runtime information (i.e. each group model “is associated with a different organizations of a plurality of organizations”)),
is based on a same data model pattern ([0068], each model template 502 specifies which data inputs from the plant-floor industrial devices (e.g., industrial controllers, telemetry devices, sensors, etc.) for the problem represented by the selected business objective and defines correlations and causations between these data inputs that are relevant to the business objective (i.e. the same data model pattern of each group model is that each model defines the data inputs for the business objective and the correlations and causations between the data puts),
the data model pattern including a plurality of data structures ([0068], each model template 502 specifies which data inputs from the plant-floor industrial devices (e.g., industrial controllers, telemetry devices, sensors, etc.) should be examined and defines correlations and causations between these data inputs (i.e. plurality of data structures), [0073], smart gateway platform 302 leverages a customized model template 502 “to collect and structure the mapped data items for subsequent analysis” (i.e. data structures) [0086], “model 702 specifies the data that should be analyzed” and “informs data modeling component 308 how to organize and combine the specified data items into meaningful clusters” (i.e. data structures)), each data structure of the plurality of data structures stored separately from other data structures of the plurality of data structures ([0053], a model template—selected from a library 302 of model templates 502 stored on memory 318 (i.e. multiple data structures stored separately), [0065]-[0066], in fig. 5, smart gateway platform 302 can store a library 320 of model templates 424 that are each(i.e. multiple data structures stored separately) associated with a corresponding business objective or outcome, and fig. 6 is a diagram illustrating “an example model classification schema for storage of model templates 502 in the smart gateway platform's library,” which Examiner notes depicts multiple distinct models 502a-502h in the library, and “[a]ccording to this example schema, model templates 502 are classified within a hierarchical classification schema (i.e. multiple data structures stored separately), according to industry or vertical (e.g., automotive, oil and gas, mining, food and drug, power generation, textiles, etc.)”
PNG
media_image1.png
675
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), the plurality of data structures including:
multiple group data structures, where at least one group data structure of the multiple group data structures includes a first field ([0151], [0155]-[0156], relevant topics are defined that are associated with respective smart tags 422, and smart tags 422 configured for identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams from these smart tags 422 to allow different types of entities—end customers, OEMs, systems integrators, etc.—to share project or system runtime information (i.e. a group data structures with a first field – topic labels/smart tags including identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams), multiple group type data structures, each group type data structure linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures ([0151], [0155]-[0156], data modeling templates 702/424 (i.e. multiple group member data structures) may define relevant topics associated with respective smart tags 422, and smart tags 422 or the data modeling templates 424 used to configure smart tags are configured for identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams from these smart tags 422 to allow different types of entities—end customers, OEMs, systems integrators, etc.—to share project or system runtime information (i.e. multiple group data structures – multiple model templates with particular topic labels/smart tags including identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams), [0053], the model template define data items (e.g., sensor inputs, measured process variables, key performance indicators, machine operating modes, environmental factors, etc.) that are relevant to the business objective (i.e. multiple group type data structures linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures – the multiple different objectives linked to each of the different topic labels, etc. that are the data structure of each the multiple model template), [0065]-[0067], in fig. 5, smart gateway platform 302 can store a library 320 of model templates 424 (i.e. the multiple templates received by subscribers in the library - multiple group member data structures) that are each associated with a corresponding business objective or outcome (i.e. multiple group type data structures – the objectives or outcomes of the multiple templates), and each of the model templates 502 (i.e. multiple group member data structures) are classified within a industry or vertical, and under each industry or vertical classification (or sub-industry) is one or more machine selections relevant to that industry or vertical, e.g., a Tire and Rubber sub-industry may be associated with several different machines that are typically associated with tire manufacture (e.g., Calendering, Extrusion, Curing Press, Tire Building Machine, Tire Picking Station, etc.), and each machine may be associated with one or more objectives (i.e. multiple group type data structures linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures – the multiple different objectives/outcomes linked to each of the different topic labels, etc. that are the data structure of each the multiple model template)),
multiple group member data structures, each group member data structure linked to a group data structure of the multiple group data structures ([0151], [0155]-[0156], data modeling templates 702/424 (i.e. multiple group member data structures) may define relevant topics associated with respective smart tags 422, and the data modeling templates 424 are configured with topic labels configured for identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams from these smart tags 422 to allow different types of entities—end customers, OEMs, systems integrators, etc.—to share project or system runtime information (i.e. each of the multiple model templates (multiple group member data structures) are linked to the set of topic labels (multiple group data structures) of each model template), [0053], the model template define data items (e.g., sensor inputs, measured process variables, key performance indicators, machine operating modes, environmental factors, etc.) that are relevant to the business objective (i.e. each of the multiple model templates (multiple group member data structures) are linked to the set of data items, variables, KPIs, etc. (multiple group data structures) of each model template), [0065]-[0067], in fig. 5, smart gateway platform 302 can store a library 320 of model templates 424 (i.e. library of model templates - multiple group member data structures) that are each associated with a corresponding business objective or outcome, and each of the model templates 502 (i.e. multiple group member data structures) are classified within a industry or vertical, and under each industry or vertical (or sub-industry) is machine selections relevant to that industry or vertical, e.g., a Tire and Rubber sub-industry may be associated with several different machines that are typically associated with tire manufacture (e.g., Calendering, Extrusion, Curing Press, Tire Building Machine, Tire Picking Station, etc.), and each machine may be associated with one or more objectives), where at least one group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures includes a second field having a same value as the first field ([0151], [0155]-[0156], data modeling templates 702/424 (i.e. group member data structures) may define relevant topics associated with respective smart tags 422, and smart tags 422 or the data modeling templates 424 used to configure smart tags are configured for identities of subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams from these smart tags 422 to allow different types of entities—end customers, OEMs, systems integrators, etc.—to share project or system runtime information (i.e. group member data structure with a second field having the same value as the first – the model templates defined with the particular relevant topic label and the model templates with smart tags configured with identities of the particular subscribers (e.g., OEMs) permitted to receive data streams); that is,
Examiner notes, the particular value of each topic label, smart tag, and permitted entity is a field of the group data structure disclosed by the topic labels, smart tags and permitted entity, and further, within the templates, the defined topic label, smart tag, and permitted entity of those templates are a field of the group member data structure disclosed by the templates), and
multiple member data structures, each member data structure linked to a group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures ([0068], each model template 502 (i.e. linked to a group member data structure of the multiple group member data structures) defines data inputs from the plant-floor industrial devices (e.g., industrial controllers, telemetry devices, sensors, etc.) for the problem represented by the selected business objective and defines correlations and causations between these data inputs that are relevant to the business objective (i.e. the different individual data inputs, objective, and correlations and causations that make up each model are each “member data structures”), and
is associated with group hierarchy information for the group model and indicate