DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 02/17/2026. Claims 1, 15, and 19 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and have been addressed below. 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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps), claim 11 recites a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.), and claim 19 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
3. Under Step 2A – [Prong One] of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 which is representative of claim 11 and 19 recites:
“maintaining…a plurality of sets of mapping rules for converting event messages received…to a common format, the event messages received…are converted into a common format…using the plurality of sets of mapping rules…that sent the event message, and…receives and processes converted event messages, wherein a first set of mapping rules of the plurality of sets of mapping rules corresponding to…that is different from a second set of mapping rules of the plurality of sets of mapping rule corresponding to…is operated by a different provider, a subset of events corresponds to a multi-step process associated with multiple observation points for the multi-step process, the subset of the event messages comprises a collection of event information received…and to be mapped into a common sequencing format…using a set of mapping rules corresponding to, the multi-step process comprises a sequence of data access or data manipulation activities, and respective mapping rules of the plurality of sets of mappings rules specify: a selection of a common format from a plurality of common formats for converting corresponding event information, one or more controls to be applied to the corresponding event information, and one or more acts applied to a result from applying the one or more controls to the corresponding event information; and processing event information…associated with a plurality of sets of mapping rules at least by: receiving…the event information in an event message that represents an operation on data, the operation comprising accessing or manipulating the data and the event message is generated…that sends the event message…in response to a corresponding event, accessing… based on the event message to identify a mapping rule of the plurality of sets of mapping rules corresponding to the event information based on the event information, converting… based on the event message, the event information into determining a corresponding common format selected from the plurality of common formats for converting the event information specified by the mapping rule, wherein the event information represents multiple events and the common format comprises the common sequencing format, applying…one or more controls to the converted event information indicated by the mapping rule to observe how the data corresponding to the event information from the event is used at least by comparing the event information mapped into the common sequencing format with another sequence, and applying…one or more acts indicated by the mapping rule to a result from applying the one or more controls to the event information”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea for collecting event information from data service providers, converting/filtering the collected event information to a common format, and applying one or more regulatory compliance acts or controls against the converted/filtered collected event information which encompasses mental processes, (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions), fundamental economic practices (i.e., mitigating risks), commercial or legal interactions (i.e., legal obligations, business relations), that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping and mental processes groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Consistent with the Specification [¶ 0002-0008], the focus of the claims is for monitoring and performing regulatory compliance for data service providers. The limitations recite mental processes for managing and filtering event information for processing. The steps that recite “accessing”, “converting” and “applying” in the context of the claim pertain to the mental processes for “collecting event information”, “filtering the collected event information collected”, and “applying one or more acts/controls to the filtered event information”. If a claim recites limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitations fall within the mental processes grouping. Additionally, the limitations describe a sequence of tasks or interactions a central agency may perform for mitigating risks, i.e., protecting data service providers against the risk of non-compliance. The limitations that recite “maintaining” and “processing event information associated with a plurality of sets of mapping rules” in the context of the claim pertain to legal interactions/obligations and/or business relations related to regulatory compliance of event information of different data service providers which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A – [Prong Two] of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a first cloud computing platform”, “a plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, “a network”, “each of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems having a control layer application programming interface”, “a storage device”, “the control layer application programing interfaces”, receive event information representing operations by “a device”, “a corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, and “the control layer application programing interface”, “over the network to the first cloud computing platform the corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “the first computing platform having a control layer and an engine, the control layer being”, “from corresponding control layer application programming interfaces of respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, “by the first cloud computing platform”, “by the control layer”, “a plug-in of a plurality of plug-ins that is invoked based on a heterogeneous remote cloud-based system, “the engine”, “a first heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “a second heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “the first heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “than the second heterogenous remote cloud-based system”, “at the engine and from a corresponding control layer application programming interface of a respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “at the first computing platform”, “the respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “at the first cloud computing platform”, “at a respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based system of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, “by at least calling an application programming interface (API) at the respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “over the network to the first cloud computing platform”, “by the plug-in invoked at the first cloud computing platform”, “at least a source”, “a compliance rulebase”, “by the plug-in invoked at the first cloud computing platform”, “by the engine at the first cloud computing platform - see claim 1, “a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor”, – see claim 11, “a system”, “a storage medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions”, “a processor that execute the sequence of instructions to cause a set of acts, the set of acts comprising” – see claim 19 are all recited at a high level of generality in light of the Specification [Figs. 3A – discusses control layer, Fig. 4, ¶ 0053 – discusses plug-ins, 12A- discusses computer system, processor, ¶ 0049 – discusses heterogeneous platforms, e.g., a financial services platform, a bug tracking system, etc., ¶ 0073 - rulebase]. Accordingly, since the Specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, therefore these additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used in their ordinary or normal capacity to perform the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)
The other additional element of: “a method to manage operations on data that occur” is/are an attempt to generally limit the claimed invention to a field of use, but does not add any meaningful limits to the claimed invention, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a first cloud computing platform”, “a plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, “a network”, “each of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems having a control layer application programming interface”, “a storage device”, “the control layer application programing interfaces”, receive event information representing operations by “a device”, “a corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, and “the control layer application programing interface”, “over the network to the first cloud computing platform the corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “the first computing platform having a control layer and an engine, the control layer being”, “from corresponding control layer application programming interfaces of respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, “by the first cloud computing platform”, “by the control layer”, “a plug-in of a plurality of plug-ins that is invoked based on a heterogeneous remote cloud-based system, “the engine”, “a first heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “a second heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “the first heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “than the second heterogenous remote cloud-based system”, “at the engine and from a corresponding control layer application programming interface of a respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “at the first computing platform”, “the respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “at the first cloud computing platform”, “at a respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based system of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, “by at least calling an application programming interface (API) at the respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”, “over the network to the first cloud computing platform”, “by the plug-in invoked at the first cloud computing platform”, “at least a source”, “a compliance rulebase”, “by the plug-in invoked at the first cloud computing platform”, “by the engine at the first cloud computing platform - see claim 1, “a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor”, – see claim 11, “a system”, “a storage medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions”, “a processor that execute the sequence of instructions to cause a set of acts, the set of acts comprising” – see claim 19 amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and does not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims are 2-10, 12-18, and 20.
Claims 2, 12, and 20 recite “wherein processing the event information is performed by a centralized cloud-based platform comprising the first computing platform that receives event messages from the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems and processes the event messages to determine which, if any, acts are subject to controls to manage how data is used in individual ones of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems” which does not lead towards eligibility. In this case, the processing of event information part of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. Merely adding a centralized cloud platform to perform the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Claims 3 and 13 recite “wherein the one or more acts indicated by the mapping rule comprises one or more logging actions.” which further specifies the data/information necessary to carry out the recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 4 and 14 recite “wherein the one or more controls comprise one or more checks to be performed on the event information and the one or more checks emit one or more log items” which further specifies the data/information necessary to carry out the recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 5 and 15 recite “wherein the one or more controls comprise one or more tests to be performed on the event information and a control is implemented at each of the observation points for the multi-step process that are mapped into the common sequencing format” which further specifies the data/information necessary to carry out the recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 6 and 16 recite “further comprising maintaining a log at a portal based on at least the one or more acts.” which adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data storage/output, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 7 and 17 recite “further comprising receiving a portal event pertaining to review of compliance with data access controls” which adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein the portal generates a visual representation in a user interface, the visual representation corresponding to a degree of compliance or non-compliance with respect to the portal event pertaining to review of compliance with data access controls.” which further specifies the data displayed within the portal does not make the claim any less abstract. Here, the “portal” and “user interface” are computer components being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The generating step adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data output, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) Claim 9 recites “generating a non-compliance alert in the user interface and wherein the non-compliance alert comprise at least a portion of the visual representation.” which further specifies the type of data/information for display does not make the claim any less abstract. The additional element of “the user interface” is merely being used as tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 10 recites “wherein the visual representation uses a plurality of log entries stored at the first computing platform to generate a visual representation of a number of compliance events that have occurred over time and forms a graphical depiction of a trend in the user interface that illustrate whether the corresponding log entries stored at the first computing platform at trending towards an out of compliance range.” which further specifies the type of data/information for display does not make the claim any less abstract. The additional elements of “the first computing platform” and “the user interface” are merely being as used as tool to retrieve and provide information/data related to compliance. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Therefore, with respect to the dependent claims when viewed separately and in combination with the judicial exception, the recited limitations as whole fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Here, the Office Action does not assert that the claims fall under the first grouping of mathematical concepts. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully asserts that the current claims do not fall within this category since the claims recite numerous limitations that go far and beyond any per se recitations of math concepts or claims that recite only on their own mathematical concepts. For example, claim 1 includes limitations pertaining to maintaining a first cloud computing platform that is coupled to a plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems over a network. Furthermore, the claims recited additional details of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems - e.g., that each of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud- based systems have a control layer application programming interfaces that receive event information representing operations by a device to data on a storage device of a corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system, and sends event messages over the network to the first cloud computing platform representing access to the data of the corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system.”
“Similarly, the first cloud computing platform has a control layer and an engine, where the control layer is associated with a plurality of sets of mapping rules for converting event messages received from corresponding control layer application programming interfaces of respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems to a common format by the control layer using the plurality of sets of mapping rules and a plug-in of a plurality of plug-ins that is invoked based on a heterogeneous remote cloud-based system that sent the event message.”
The recited arrangement is thus directed to the technological challenge of managing data that may be received in any number of different formats from heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems. In fact, it is the very fact that the information is received from different heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems that has created the technological problem to which the present claims provide a solution. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that since the claims do not per se or on their own recite a mathematical equation, formula, or calculation, this means that the claims do not corresponds to an abstract idea as a mathematical concept.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s reply discusses that the claim does not recite any mathematical concepts and points to additional technical computing components and steps that have been added to the claim. The Examiner asserts that the previous rejection under Step 2A Prong One did not indicate there were any mathematical concepts in the claim, thus the remarks in this case are moot. Next, merely adding additional elements (such as “first cloud computing platform”, “a control layer”, “an engine”, “from corresponding control layer application programming interfaces”, “of respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems”, “the control layer”, “a plug-in of a plurality of plug-ins”, “a heterogeneous remote cloud-based system”) to the claim does not preclude the identified limitations from falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The ability to receive and manage data in different formats as described here does not automatically provide express findings that indicate technological solution to a technological problem. At best, the response is using result focused functional claim language to describe the solution, but does not claim how to achieve the results for the solution in a non-abstract way. Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328; see Int'! Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “With regard to the second of these groupings (certain methods of organizing human activity), the MPEP defines certain methods of organizing human activity as "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, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)." MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I).”
“Here, the Office Action asserts that the claims fall under the second grouping of certain methods of "organizing human activity". See Office Action at pages 4-5. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Instead, the claims are not generically directed towards mitigating risk, but are instead directed towards limitations pertaining to maintaining a first cloud computing platform that is coupled to a plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems over a network.
“Furthermore, the claims recited additional details of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud- based systems - e.g., that each of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems have a control layer application programming interfaces that receive event information representing operations by a device to data on a storage device of a corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system, and sends event messages over the network to the first cloud computing platform representing access to the data of the corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system. Similarly, the first cloud computing platform has a control layer and an engine, where the control layer is associated with a plurality of sets of mapping rules for converting event messages received from corresponding control layer application programming interfaces of respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems to a common format by the control layer using the plurality of sets of mapping rules and a plug-in of a plurality of plug-ins that is invoked based on a heterogeneous remote cloud-based system that sent the event message.”
Whether the recited approach may be used in some way to "mitigating risk" or maintain compliance with a "legal obligation[s]" is immaterial as the recited approach is not directed towards a fundamental economic principle or practice such as "mitigating risk" or maintain compliance with a "legal obligation[s]". Instead, the claims are directed to an arrangement of technological elements that can be used to maintain and process event information received from heterogeneous computing systems which may be in any number of formats due to the heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems where those events occur and from which those events are received. Therefore, since the claims do not per se or on their own recite any of the enumerated methods for organizing human activity, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not corresponds to an abstract idea as a method of organizing human activity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant arguments are not persuasive. As previously explained in the last Office Action under Step 2A Prong One, claim 1 recites limitations for "maintaining" and "processing" event information according to one or more rules/controls for compliance monitoring of data service providers which may be reasonably characterized as mitigating risks and performing legal obligations or business relations. See also Applicant’s Specification [¶ 0003-0008] which makes clear the focus of the claims is for regulatory compliance monitoring. Thus, the limitations recited in the claim cover subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. As for remarks that discuss the arrangement of technological elements, it is important for Applicant to note claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer. BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “With regard to the third of these groupings (mental processes), the MPEP defines the mental processes concepts group as "concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(III). Additionally, 'concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind are not "mental processes"'. Id. Here, the Office Action asserts that the claims fall under the third grouping of mental processes. See Office Action at pages 4-5. Applicants respectfully disagree.”
“Instead, Applicant respectfully asserts that the current claims do not fall within this category since the claims recite numerous limitations that go far and beyond any per se recitations of mental processes or claims and Synopsys., 839 F.3d at 1148, 120 USPQ2d at 1481 (a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data could not practically be performed in the human mind).”
“Such an approach simply cannot be done using mental steps as the claim are directed towards at least a particular arrangement of a first cloud computing platform and a plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems as described above including at least the various elements and their interrelationships (e.g., the control layer application programming interfaces, the event information representing operations on a device to data storage on a storage device of a corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system, the network used to send event messages over the network to first cloud computing platform, and where the control layer at the first cloud computing platform invokes one of a plurality of plugins to convert the event information representing operations on a device to data storage on a storage device of a corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system based on the corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system that sent the event message.”
“Respectfully, the recited arrangement of elements cannot be provided by the human mind. Nor can the recited functionality be provided by the human mind because a human has no visibility into such processes beyond what is provided by the computer itself. This is inherently a technological challenge to management of data, especially when it is from heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems that may be received in any number of different formats from those heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems. In fact, it is the very fact that the information is received from different heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems that has created the technological problem to which the present claims provide a solution.”
“Here, the human mind is not equipped to address the technological challenge of managing data that may be received in any number of different formats from heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems. In particular, the present claims are directed towards an approach to monitor the activity of remote heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems where that information is transmitted (e.g., over a network) from the remote heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems to the first cloud computing platform and processed using a plugin that is invoked based on the source to the information. Such an approach simply cannot be practically done using mental steps as the relevant information pertains to and is contained in the computing system itself.
“Instead, a computing system must perform the actual monitoring because a human has no visibility into such processes beyond what is provided by the computer itself - let alone the recited elements therein. Based upon the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite matter within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, and therefore should not be treated as reciting an abstract idea. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that since the claims do not per se or on their own recite a mental process, this means that the claims do not correspond to an abstract idea such as mental processes.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is important for Applicant to note claims can recite mental processes even if they are being performed by a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) – a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group V. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) was considered a mental process. Thus the limitations of claim 1 can be directed to an abstract idea even if the claims require operations that a human could not perform as quickly as a computer.
In the instant case, the limitations identified under Step 2A Prong One recite mental processes for collecting and comparing event information received from different data service providers and applying one or more rules/controls to the observed event information for analysis, i.e., regulatory compliance. As previously explained, the recited additional elements, see Specification [Figs. 3A, 4, 12A, ¶ 0049, 0053, 0073] - such as [cloud computing platforms, control layer application programming interfaces, and heterogeneous remote cloud-based computing systems] are generic computer components merely being used to perform aid in performing the abstract idea and do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. See MPEP 2106.05(f) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Furthermore, the claims integrate any allege abstract idea into a practical application that is patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106. For instance, limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP § § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).”
“Therefore, even if it is argued that the claims are directed to a judicial exception (which they are not as discussed above), Applicant respectfully notes that the claims very clearly integrate the claim recitations into a practical application. Without repeating all of the arguments provided above, it is noted that the claims recite the practical application of maintaining a first cloud computing platform that is coupled to a plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems over a network. Furthermore, the claims recited additional details of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems - e.g., that each of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems have a control layer application programming interfaces that receive event information representing operations by a device to data on a storage device of a corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system, and sends event messages over the network to the first cloud computing platform representing access to the data of the corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system.
“Similarly, the first cloud computing platform has a control layer and an engine, where the control layer is associated with a plurality of sets of mapping rules for converting event messages received from corresponding control layer application programming interfaces of respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems to a common format by the control layer using the plurality of sets of mapping rules and a plug-in of a plurality of plug- ins that is invoked based on a heterogeneous remote cloud-based system that sent the event message.
“This presents an issue for data monitoring processes because such an approach, without more, would require the separate monitoring processes for each heterogeneous cloud-based computing system (utilizing different computing resources) and would require entirely different processing flows. In contrast, the recited approach provides an arrangement where events from multiple different heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems can be processed into a common format such that a unified set of controls can be applied to the event information. Based upon the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite matter within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, and therefore should not be treated as reciting an abstract idea. Since the claims as a whole integrate into a practical application of any possible exception, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite eligible subject matter.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The remarks and Specification make clear that the claims are directed to abstract idea that merely seek to use generic computing components, i.e., [Figs. 3A, 4, 12A, ¶ 0049, 0053, 0073] as a tool as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f), not on any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself or any other computing technology. In describing the invention, the remarks focus on the details of how the data monitoring processes are carried out and not much discussion regarding the generic computing equipment being used in the claim. The remarks highlight challenges facing the inventor for performing the data monitoring processes (such as “would require the separate monitoring processes for each heterogeneous cloud-based computing system utilizing different computing resources”, “would require entirely different processing flows”), however, converting or filtering event information into a common format using generic computer components and/or machinery for processing does integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims or remarks do not recite any particular type of formatting or any technical details related to how the data is formatted. The Specification also makes clear in [¶ 0054] various techniques used to convert data from one format into the common format can include use of mapping tables, syntactical conversion parsing, plug-ins, etc. As best understood from the passage of the Specification [¶ 0054] any technique may used to convert the event information into a common format. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks directed to converting the event information into a common format for processing does not represent a technological solution to a technological problem. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings elucidated what may be considered an abstract idea. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotel.com, L.P., 2013-1505 (2014). There, briefly, the patents were related to approaches for keeping a user that had clicked on an ad on a website on the website instead of taking the user to a different website. See Id. at 3-7. In reversing the lower court's decision, the Federal Circuit noted that while the claims address a business challenge, "it was a challenge particular to" technology. See Id. at 19. Further, the Court explained that the claims did not attempt to preempt every application in the field because the claims addressed the technological problem in a "specific way". See Id. at 23. (Emphasis added.)
Like the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, the claims of the instant patent application address a technology related challenge in a specific way - e.g., using the first cloud computing platform that is coupled to a plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems over a network where each of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems have a control layer application programming interfaces that receive event information representing operations by a device to data on a storage device of a corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system, and sends event messages over the network to the first cloud computing platform representing access to the data of the corresponding heterogeneous remote cloud-based system, and where the first cloud computing platform has a control layer and an engine, the control layer is associated with a plurality of sets of mapping rules for converting event messages received from corresponding control layer application programming interfaces of respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems of the plurality of heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems to a common format by the control layer using the plurality of sets of mapping rules and a plug-in of a plurality of plug-ins that is invoked based on a heterogeneous remote cloud-based system that sent the event message.”
Thus, the recited arrangement is directed to the technological challenge of managing data that may be received in any number of different formats from heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems. In fact, it is the very fact that the information is received from different heterogeneous cloud-based computing systems that has created the technological problem to which the present claims provide a solution. Additionally, the claims do not merely recite functions that may be performed mentally, but rather impart a specific set of computer- implemented steps to manage event information from respective heterogeneous remote cloud- based systems, which is a challenge that is particular to technology, as was the case in DDR Holdings.
This specific approach is clearly not directed to an abstract idea, nor any of the
delineated excluded categories such as "fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and Mathematical relationships or formulas". Thus, Applicant respectfully avers that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the claims in the DDR court decision were related to a technological solution whereas the presently recited claims do not recite a comparable technological solution. Other than restating limitations in the claim, the remarks do not indicate how the asserted claims parallel the factual patterns discussed in the previous DDR Holdings court decision, thus DDR has no applicability. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The claims are not abstract because they provide a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts as interpreted under Enfish LLC. In Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp case, the Federal Circuit held that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea when they provide a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756255, (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016.) - e.g. the Court found that claims directed to an improvement to the way a computer stores and retrieves data through use of a specific implementation of a new data structure are not abstract. Id. As noted in the USPTO's Memorandum dated May 19, 2016 regarding Enfish, the improvement need not be defined by reference to "physical" components but may instead by defined by "logical structures and processes".
“Like the claims at issue in Enfish, the claims of the instant patent application are non- abstract since they recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer by providing a specific implementation of an improved way to store, retrieve, and process data (new data structure and the recited elements) for converting event information into a common format.” Here, the improvement is directed towards a software issue that arises from the respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems. Specifically, the respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems do not generally provide event information in the same format. As a result, and without more, processing of the event information would require multiple different sets of logic to be maintained, stored, and accessed, in order to determine how to process each event. Such an approach would likely require redundant resources for maintaining and applying multiple different set of logic even if that logic is otherwise overlapping. By instead converting the event information into a common format, a single set of logic can then be used to analyze the converted information from multiple different heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems.
“Likewise, the present approach provides for comparing sequences of acts represented by multiple events using a common sequencing format as discussed herein. As a result, the present application provides a specific implementation of a logical structure (e.g., the plurality of sets of mapping rules) for events in different formats that addresses at least a software problem, just as Enfish provided a specific implementation of a data structure that addressed at least a software problem.
Therefore, like the case in Enfish, the pending claims are directed towards a solution to a software problem - converting event information received from heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems into a common format. Since the pending claims offer a technological solution to a problem in at least software, Appellant submits that the pending claims cannot be considered abstract. Thus, Appellant respectfully asserts that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and are subject matter eligible.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s argument are not persuasive. The asserted claims do not parallel the factual patterns discussed in Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus the Enfish court decision is not applicable. The asserted claims differ from the claims found patent eligible in Enfish, where the claims were "specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database." The claims were "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate" rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. In the instant case, the remarks emphasize the present application provides a specific implementation of a logical structure (e.g., the plurality of sets of mapping rules) for events in different formats. Turning to [¶ 0054] of the original Applicant Specification for support, the disclosure simply generally describes the techniques used to convert data from one format into the common format, i.e., mapping tables, syntactical conversion parsing, plug-ins, etc. at a high-level of generality. These are findings or evidence from the disclosure that indicate there is no specific type of data formatting or conversion being performed in the claim. It is also important to note the ordered combination of computer components being used in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality and are being used in their ordinary/normal capacity to aid in performing the judicial exception. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Like the claims at issue in Bascom, the independent claims, when taken as an ordered combination of claim limitations transform the alleged abstract idea into a particular practical application. Specifically, just as in Bascom where the courts found that the claims where patent eligible because they recited a specific combination of known elements (local and remote elements) that were connected over a network and performed filtering, the present claims at least perform similar functions.”
“For example, the heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems filter activity at respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems (remote elements) and provide that filtered information to the first computing platform (local element) in event messages generated using one or more APIs at the respective heterogeneous remote cloud-based systems. Those event messages are then processed at the first computing platform (local element) to determine which event messages correspond to event information should be subject to one or more acts. In otherwards, the multiple remote system filter which information regarding events at the remote systems should be sent to the local system and the local system then further filters the information from the remote system to determine which should be associated with further actions.”
“As a result, the claims provide an "ordered combination of claim limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a particular, practical application of that [alleged] abstract idea." Id. at 20. Therefore, like the claims in Bascom, the pending claims recited at least an ordered combination of claim limitations that transform the allegedly abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, Appellant respectfully asserts that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and are subject matter eligible.
For the above reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s argument are not persuasive. The asserted claims here are distinguishable from the claims in Bascom because the courts held them patent-eligible because they were directed to improvements in the way computers and networks carry out their basic functions. In the instant case the ordered combination of claims are directed to an abstract idea for managing and processing event information received from separate systems into a common format for compliance monitoring, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying the same result. The courts have previously held using a computer or generic computer components [Figs. 3A, 4, 12A, ¶ 0049, 0053, 0073] – see Spec to achieve a solution more quickly is not sufficient to show an improvement to computer the functioning of a computer itself or any other computer technology. The Applicant's Specification in at least [¶ 0054] describes various data formatting techniques in a general manner that may be used to perform the converting step and the claim broadly recites converting the event information into a common format without any particular technological improvement as to how the system or computer carries out these operations. The claimed techniques do not use the ordered combination of additional elements in a manner that indicates there is an inventive concept or that the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Consequently, for at least the reasons given above, it is respectfully submitted that the independent claims 1, 11, and 19, and their dependent claims are allowable over the cited references.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 2-20 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the limitations of the claims integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or provides an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights