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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted onJune 06, 2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement isacknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 have been examined in this application. Thiscommunication is the first action on the merits.
Claim Objections
In Line 7 of Claim 3, “additionally based in…” is recited. This should be “additionally based [[in]] on…”
In Lines 3-4 of Claim 4, “real performance of such element.” is recited. This should be “real performance of [[such]] each element.”
In Line 2 of Claim 6, “those happened” is recited. This should be “those that happened…”
In Line 7 of Claim 10 – “in relation to event being reported…” is recited. This should be “in relation to the event being reported.”
In Line 5 of Claim 13, “a step of re-define…” is recited. This should be “a step of re-defin[[e]]ing…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 14 and 15 recite "A processing system comprising means..." and "A computer program product comprising instructions..." respectively. Given that independent Claim 1 from which they depend recites “A computer-implemented method…”, dependent Claims 14 and 15 cannot be said to further limit the scope of independent Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for monitoring large amounts of alerts b) receiving d) calculating B available combinations of behavior properties (B), CBt, wherein: - a behavior property (B) is a kind of alert, a kind of measurement of an alert or a kind of element that issued an alert; and ZB is calculated as:
PNG
media_image1.png
49
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
being NB the total number of behavior properties (B) of the background case and MB is the number of behavior properties (B) of each available combination of behavior properties (B) of the background cas
PNG
media_image2.png
12
82
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ii. applying the Bayes theorem to calculate the odds of each combination CBt of behavior properties (B) to be a hit:
PNG
media_image3.png
33
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein P indicates probability, CBt is each of the combinations of behavior properties (B) of a background case B, H indicates hit and P(CBtIH) and P(HICBt) are conditional probabilities; iii. for each alert cas
PNG
media_image4.png
45
204
media_image4.png
Greyscale
being N the total number of behavior properties (B) of an alert case (-2) and M is the number of behavior properties (B) of each available combination of behavior properties (B) of the alert cas
PNG
media_image5.png
13
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
v. calculating the probability for each alert case (B):
PNG
media_image6.png
13
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
e) classifying issued during the same trading session in stock markets; or - a combination of at least two of the previous ones.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers both a mental process and mathematical concept. “receiving…”, “classifying…”, “calculating…”, “discarding or outputting…”, recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract. Additionally, the numerous recitation of mathematical formulas, such as the derivation of Zb, “applying the Bayes Theorem to calculate the odds…”, the derivation of Z, the derivation of P(Hcase), are clearly recitations of mathematical concepts. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations, a claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 2-15 recite abstract ideas by virtue of their dependency from independent Claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for monitoring large amounts of alerts : a) providing a database of background cases; b) receiving according to a predetermined classifying criterion; d) calculating B available combinations of behavior properties (B), CBt, wherein: - a behavior property (B) is a kind of alert, a kind of measurement of an alert or a kind of element that issued an alert; and ZB is calculated as:
PNG
media_image1.png
49
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
being NB the total number of behavior properties (B) of the background case B is the number of behavior properties (B) of each available combination of behavior properties (B) of the background cas
PNG
media_image2.png
12
82
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ii. applying the Bayes theorem to calculate the odds of each combination CBt of behavior properties (B) to be a hit:
PNG
media_image3.png
33
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein P indicates probability, CBt is each of the combinations of behavior properties (B) of a background case B, H indicates hit and P(CBtIH) and P(HICBt) are conditional probabilities; iii. for each alert cas
PNG
media_image4.png
45
204
media_image4.png
Greyscale
being N the total number of behavior properties (B) of an alert case (-2) and M is the number of behavior properties (B) of each available combination of behavior properties (B) of the alert cas
PNG
media_image5.png
13
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
v. calculating the probability for each alert case
PNG
media_image6.png
13
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
e) classifying or - alerts
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “providing a database of background cases”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claims 2-13 do not recite any additional limitations beyond those in claims from which they depend.
Claim 14 additionally recites “A processing system comprising means configured to perform the steps of the method…”.
Claim 15 additionally recites “A computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method…”.
The additional limitations of Claims 14 and 15 are ineligible by analogous reasoning as the additional limitations in Claim 1 above.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claims 14-15 recite additional limitations which merely further limit the abstract ideas of Claim 1, and are therefore ineligible. Additional limitations disclosed are as follows:
Claim 14 additionally recites “A processing system comprising means configured to perform the steps of the method…”.
Claim 15 additionally recites “A computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method…”.
For analogous reasoning as above, Claims 14-15 do not integrate the abstract ideas recited into a particular application per Step 2A Prong II or amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Claims 2-13 do not recite any additional elements beyond those recited in the claims from which they depend, and as a result, Claims 2-13 do not include any additional elements that either integrate under Step 2A Prong II or amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office Action.
Claims 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 USC 112(d) as set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623