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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 8/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues claims are not a mental processes and using a matrix does not amount to math.
Response to Arguments
The claims amount to data analysis/manipulation and using some form of AI as a tool.
Claiming AI on a high level can amount to using a black box without specifying any real details of how the AI operates or what’s in the black box. The claims need to specify the technical details of the AI.
"The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. "Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions." Id. For the purposes of this abstract idea, "[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation."
All arguments have been addressed in the body of the amended rejections.
Examiner’s Note
The claimed invention amounts to a mental process and/or a method of performing business.
It is noted that “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. "Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions." Id. For the purposes of this abstract idea, "[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation." Below are a few excerpts from the applicant’s disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
655
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
678
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0045] The following are examples of the Prism Matrix Mathematical Models.
[0046] In one embodiment, the calculations Articulated by the Prism Matrix and Contained then Executed by the Rules Engine is Deductive Reasoning Mathematics. By way of introduction, the following example shows how Deductive Reasoning Mathematics differs from the more common Algebra which is essentially the basis for Calculus.
With Algebra:
IF 2 x b = 6
THEN b = 6 / 2 b = 3
With Deductive Reasoning:
IS b = 3 TRUE?
IF 2 x b = 6
AND 2 x 3 = 6
THEN b = 3 ISTRUE b = 3
[0047] The objective of this example is to demonstrate that deductive
reasoning, in accordance with one embodiment, is a True/False test and it requires a question to solve. In the case above, without the question that "b" might equal three
(3) the process cannot start. Solving for the value of "b", is not really the domain of Deductive Reasoning. This distinction is also important as the Prism Models are not able to determine, in isolation, what the "Correct" response actually is, only if the sum of the User Inputs/Responses is True or False.
Therefore, the method steps are a mental process/mathematical concept performed by a human with or without the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer component. This can be a process that was previously performed by "human agents" and may now be automated.
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, 7-8, 10-14, 17-19. 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claims 1, 7-8, 10-14, 17-19. 21-22 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1:
the business assurance data is represented as items to be filled in via the interface of a provisioned framework (mental process; a human- mind with pen and paper can illustrate data/determine data)
wherein, the items received via the provisioned framework are mapped and filled into a plurality of target frameworks (mental process of mapping/modeling with assistance of pen and paper);
generating a provisioned template representing items filled into the provisioned framework and generating a plurality of target templates corresponding to each of the target frameworks (abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human-mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data to be analyzed/processed);
wherein said mapping implements a matrix to program item relationships that enable the mapping of said items from the provisioned framework to each of the target frameworks (mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation of using a matrix), and wherein for each item filled into the provisioned framework (user can fill in data using pen and paper), access is made to the matrix that contains deductive reasoning logic (mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation of using a matrix), said access is by a rules engine (see below) that processes one or more tests using the deductive reasoning logic (see below) on the items filled into the provisioned framework before being filled into one or more of the plurality of target frameworks(mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to fill in data);
wherein items entered into the plurality of target frameworks enable generation of respective target templates representing the items of the target frameworks further expand mental process.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Saas system, remote device (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
wherein said items filled in via the interface of the provisioned framework are automatically filled into the plurality of target frameworks without requiring items to be filled into separate interfaces of each of the plurality of target frameworks (interface/computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
receiving a request to access the SaaS system from a user;
providing an interface by the SaaS system to a remote device of the user (mere data gathering and/or outputting recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
a rules engine (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
using the deductive reasoning logic on the items filled into the provisioned framework(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Saas system, remote device (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
wherein said items filled in via the interface of the provisioned framework are automatically filled into the plurality of target frameworks without requiring items to be filled into separate interfaces of each of the plurality of target frameworks (interface/computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
receiving a request to access the SaaS system from a user;
providing an interface by the SaaS system to a remote device of the user (mere data gathering and/or outputting recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
a rules engine (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
using the deductive reasoning logic on the items filled into the provisioned framework(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the receiving/storing steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein said deductive reasoning computation does not determine whether an item provided to the provisioned framework is correct, said provided response is instead a question to be solved or validated (further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the mapping is one of a direct mapping between an item of the provisioned framework to an item of a target framework, or the mapping is one of an indirect mapping between an item of the provisioned framework mapped to another item of the provisioned framework and then mapped to a target framework (further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
10. The method of claim 9, wherein said deductive reasoning logic that is part of the matrix is separate from execution of the deductive reasoning logic by the rules engine, such that modifications to the deductive reasoning logic is independent of execution of the rules engine(further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the deductive reasoning logic of the matrix is static and separate from execution by the rules engine, wherein the matrix being static enables changes upon an approval process and is not modifiable by the rules engine(further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
12. The method of claim 2, wherein the matrix is a database that contains said item relationships, said item relationships further include item associations(further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
13. The method of claim 12, wherein item associations in the matrix are processed by tests executed by a rules engine(further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 1:
Items are mapped using a matrix (mental process of mapping/modeling with assistance of pen and paper);
Matrix contains deductive logic (mathematical concepts, see applicant’s disclosure; mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operations and make decisions using rules, if-then statements);
Generating templates (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human-mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data to be analyzed/processed);
detecting (encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of data);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Saas system, providing an interface, remote device (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
Rules engine, (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the rules engine is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the engine functions);
framework, logic (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
Receiving a request (mere data gathering and/or outputting recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Saas system, providing an interface, remote device (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
Rules engine, (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the rules engine is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the engine functions);
framework, logic (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
Receiving a request (mere data gathering and/or outputting recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the receiving/storing steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
17. The method of claim 14, wherein said deductive reasoning logic when executed operates on a true/false test that requires a question to solve before a deductive reasoning computation starts using said rules engine(further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
18. The method of claim 14, wherein said deductive reasoning computation does not determine whether an item provided to the provisioned framework is correct, without providing a question to be solved(further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
With respect to claim 19:
2A Prong 1:
Items are mapped using a matrix (mental process of mapping/modeling with assistance of pen and paper);
Filling in items (user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to fill in data);
Mapping items (mental process of equating items or using pen and paper to map items);
Generating templates (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human-mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data to be analyzed/processed);
Determine compliance (abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Saas system, remote device, deductive reasoning logic (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
Rules engine, framework auditor (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the rules engine is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the engine functions);
data is represented as items to be filled in via the interface (display/interface/computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
Receiving request/items; providing an interface (mere data gathering and/or outputting recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Saas system, remote device, deductive reasoning logic (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
Rules engine, framework auditor (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the rules engine is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the engine functions);
data is represented as items to be filled in via the interface (display/interface/computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
Receiving request/items; providing an interface (mere data gathering and/or outputting recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the receiving/storing steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein said deductive reasoning logic when executed operates on a true/false test that requires a question to solve before a deductive reasoning computation starts using said rules engine, and said deductive reasoning computation does not determine whether an item provided to the provisioned framework is correct, said provided response is instead a question to be solved or validated(further expand mental process, mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
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 DAVID R VINCENT whose telephone number is (571)272-3080. The examiner can normally be reached ~Mon-Fri 12-8:30.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at 5712703428. 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.
/DAVID R VINCENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights