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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “In the Response to Arguments section of the Office Action, the Office Action states that Examiner disagrees with Applicant's assertion that the limitations of amended claim 1 recite an improvement to the function of a computing device……. Id, pg. 3. The Office Action mischaracterizes Applicant's argument. Applicant does not argue that the alleged abstract idea recited by claim 1 itself is the improvement. Instead, on page 10 of the Response to the Office Action dated 11/24/2024, Applicant states that the resulting reductions in processor and memory resources needed to process a string constitute the improvement to the function of a computing device and cites paragraph 40 of Applicant's Specification in support. The Office Action fails to explain why reducing the required processor and memory resources would not constitute an improvement to a computing device”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that paragraph [0040] of the specification describes that the representation results in fewer number characters. But (1) as stated in [0039] and the rejection, this is a mental process since one can mentally represent strings this way (e.g. RUN, RUN, WALK, WALK, RUN, JUMP, RUN, JUMP, HIKE, and WALK can be 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, and 2.) and (2) any such reduction in memory would also apply to the entirely mental process improvement. For instance, it is easier to remember the string of numbers than the words – that undercuts that this is an improvement in the functioning of the computer. Really it is an improvement in the abstract idea, and the computer application would benefit from that same improvement. But that is not changing or improving how the computer operates.
As cited in the MPEP2106.05(f)(2) “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Specifically, any speed or memory reduction improvement occurs even in the mental process as noted above, so any improvement to the computer is inherent to applying that abstract idea on the computer.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The Office Action states that Examiner disagrees with Applicant's assertion that the computing device, processor, and memory of amended claim 1 are not post-hoc additions to implement an abstract idea….The Office Action does not actually address Applicant's argument. Asserting that the limitations of claim 1 are performed by a generic computer does not refute the assertion that the limitations of claim 1, when performed by a computer, improve the functioning of the computer. Section 2106.04(d)(1) of the MPEP states, "A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field."…. Moreover, the Office Action does not provide support for the assertion the computing devices recited by claims 1, 8, and 15 are generic devices. For example, claim 1 recites that the computing device is a component of a data pipeline monitoring system which at least provides some specificity to the claimed computing devices”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, merely performing the recited limitations on a computing device does not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. As cited in the MPEP2106.05(f)(2) “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Specifically, any speed or memory reduction improvement occurs even in the mental process as noted above, so any improvement to the computer is inherent to applying that abstract idea on the computer.
Moreover, “a computing device” that is a component of a “data pipeline monitoring system” does not provide meaningful specificity to the computing device. Identifying the computing device as part of a data pipeline monitoring system does not change the nature of the computing device or the functions it performs. The computing device is recited only as executing instructions to evaluate data and transfer alerts, which are functions that can be performed by a general-purpose computer. Accordingly, the recited computing device remains generic and does not provide an improvement to computer functionality.
Further, the claims do not recite any functionalities that improves how the computing device operates. Instead, the claims merely require identifying groups within data and representing those groups numerically, which constitutes an abstract data manipulation that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Any resulting reduction in resource usage flows from the abstract idea itself and not from an improvement to the functioning of the computer. The computing device is used as a generic tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claimed limitations use the computer merely as a generic tool to apply the abstract idea, rather than improving computer capabilities as required for integration into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The Office Action states that Examiner disagrees with Applicant's argument that even if the alleged abstract idea of amended claim 1 is assumed, for the sake of argument, to not improve the function of a computing device, the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Office Action, pg. 4-5. ….. Applicant disagrees and maintains that alerting pipeline operators of detected pipeline errors directly relates to a solution for resolving pipeline errors and is therefore not extra-solution activity”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant asserts that alerting pipeline operators of detected pipeline errors directly relates to resolving pipeline errors and therefore constitutes integration into a practical application. However, merely notifying a user or operator of a detected condition does not, by itself, provide a technical solution or improve the operation of the computer or data pipeline. The alerting pipeline operators does not provide any improvement, because the claims and specification are devoid of any technical explanation of how this is performed. All the claims describes that the alert is transferred, and that there is an intended use “to respond”, but that is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activities. The argument characterizes this as alerting “operators … directly…resolving pipeline errors” but that is not claimed. There are no “operators” and not any technical explanation of how this is performed, and merely transferring/outputting a result of a mental process even if called an “alert” is still mere insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the claimed alerting does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “While the Office Action asserts that determining the change in entropy triggers a threshold is a mentals process, Applicant notes that this is not the question at hand, but whether this limitation is integrated into a practical application. The Office Action does not explain why determining the change in entropy triggers a threshold to detect an error in a data pipeline is not an integration into a practical application as asserted by Applicant and explained in paragraphs 2, 3, and 61 of Applicant's Specification. Merely asserting that a claim limitation is an abstract idea like a mental process is not relevant as to whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application since it is already assumed that the limitation at hand is an abstract idea”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant’s arguments on paragraphs 2, 3, and 61 of the specification is not persuasive. Paragraph 2 describes known issues and challenges associated with data pipelines, but merely identifying a technical environment or problem does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Paragraph 3 explains information entropy as a measure of data unpredictability, which constitutes evaluation of information rather than a technical solution. Paragraph 61 describes determining entropy values, comparing those values to a threshold, and determining whether entropy is increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant. Paragraph 61 is limited to evaluating data characteristics and indicating a potential condition based on that evaluation. Therefore, paragraph 61 reflects evaluation/observation and judgement of data. The limitation “determining the change in entropy triggers an entropy threshold, wherein triggering the entropy threshold indicates an error in the data pipeline” is a mental process and mental process cannot provide improvement.
Moreover, the claims as stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), have to describe the improvement such that one of ordinary skill would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and technical details such as an explanation of the problem and how it is solved improved. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s Argument that “Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 is statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the limitations of amended claim 1 recite an improvement to the function of a computing device and are integrated into a practical application. Amended claim 1 recites identify the character groups in the data string, identify group types for the character groups, and numerically represent the character groups based on the group types. By numerically representing an unstemmed string, the computing device represents the original string received from a data pipeline using a fewer number of characters. Applicant's Specification, 40. This reduces the size of the string and consequently reduces the required processor and memory resources needed to process the string. Id, 40. These resulting reductions constitute an improvement to the function of a computing device. Id, 40”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that paragraph [0040] of the specification describes that the representation results in fewer number characters. But (1) as stated in [0039] and the rejection, this is a mental process since one can mentally represent strings this way (e.g. RUN, RUN, WALK, WALK, RUN, JUMP, RUN, JUMP, HIKE, and WALK can be 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, and 2.) and (2) any such reduction in memory would also apply to the entirely mental process improvement. For instance, it is easier to remember the string of numbers than the words – that undercuts that this is an improvement in the functioning of the computer. Really it is an improvement in the abstract idea, and the computer application would benefit from that same improvement. But that is not changing or improving how the computer operates.
As cited in the MPEP2106.05(f)(2) “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Specifically, any speed or memory reduction improvement occurs even in the mental process as noted above, so any improvement to the computer is inherent to applying that abstract idea on the computer.
Moreover, the claims merely require identifying groups within data and representing those groups numerically, which constitutes an abstract data manipulation that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Any resulting reduction in resource usage flows from the abstract idea itself and not from an improvement to the functioning of the computer. The computing device is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claimed limitations use the computer merely as a tool to apply the abstract idea, rather than improving computer capabilities as required for integration into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “In computer-related technologies, it should be determined whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification's discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. Id”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant’s reliance on Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. is not persuasive. In Enfish, the claims were found eligible because they recited a specific data structure that improved the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, thereby improving computer functionality itself. In contrast, the present claims do not recite any specific data structure, memory organization, or technical mechanism that alters how the computer operates. Instead, the claims merely require identifying character groups and numerically representing those groups, which constitutes abstract data manipulation rather than a technological improvement. Any alleged efficiency results from the abstract representation of information, not from an improvement to the computer’s underlying functionality. Accordingly, unlike Enfish, the claims here use the computer merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “A judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, but the improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(a). The Office Action indicates that limitations performed by the computing device are an abstract idea and that the computing device is an additional element. Id, pg. 8-9. The computing device, processor, and memory of amended claim 1 are not post-hoc additions to implement an abstract idea. Instead, by executing program instructions to perform the alleged abstract idea, the functionality of the computing device, processor, and memory recited by claim 1 are improved. Therefore, the improvement of amended claim 1 is not provided alone by the alleged abstract idea, but instead by the claimed computing device, processor, and memory. Since amended claim 1 recites an improvement to the function of a computing device, amended claim 1 is therefore statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that MPEP § 2106.05(a) requires that the claims need to describe the improvement such that one of ordinary skill would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and technical details such as an explanation of the problem and how it is solved, improved not merely the use of generic computer components executing program instructions to perform an abstract idea. Here, the claims recite a generic computing device, processor, and memory configured to identify character groups and numerically represent those groups. Such limitations merely use generic computer components to carry out abstract data manipulation and information representation. Executing program instructions on a generic processor does not, by itself, improve the functionality of the processor, memory, or computing device, but instead reflects the ordinary use of a computer as a tool. Any alleged reduction in memory or processing resources flows from the abstract idea of representing information in a different form and is inherent to applying that abstract idea on a computer, rather than from a specific improvement in computer technology. Accordingly, the claimed computing device, processor, and memory do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “However, even if the alleged abstract idea of amended claim 1 is assumed, for the sake of argument, to not improve the function of a computing device, the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application…... Since amended claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, amended claim 1 is therefore statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Based on the above remarks, amended claim 1 is statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive. Paragraph 2 describes known issues and challenges associated with data pipelines, but merely identifying a technical environment or problem does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Paragraph 3 explains information entropy as a measure of data unpredictability, which constitutes evaluation of information rather than a technical solution. Paragraph 61 describes determining entropy values, comparing those values to a threshold, and determining whether entropy is increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant. Paragraph 61 is limited to evaluating data characteristics and indicating a potential condition based on that evaluation. Therefore, paragraph 61 reflects evaluation/observation and judgement of data. The limitation “determining the change in entropy triggers an entropy threshold, wherein triggering the entropy threshold indicates an error in the data pipeline” is a mental process and mental process alone cannot provide improvement and the limitation “transferring an alert to indicate the change in entropy and data pipeline error” is insignificant extra solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. While Applicant characterizes the determining and alerting limitation as “facilitating the resolution of errors in data pipeline” the claims and paragraph [0061] merely detect, evaluate and report a condition without any technical explanation of how this is performed. All the claims describes that the alert is transferred, and that there is an intended use “to respond”, but that is nothing more than providing/transferring the output to a user which is an insignificant extra solution activity.
Moreover, the claims as stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), have to describe the improvement such that one of ordinary skill would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and technical details such as an explanation of the problem and how it is solved, improved. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
112th rejection
The 112th rejection has been withdrawn based on the amendments filed on 09/09/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claim 1:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "system" and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“monitor the data pipeline, wherein the data pipeline ingests an input data set, recites a mental process because human mind can monitor the data pipeline by observation and evaluation of the data.
-“processes the input data set” recites a mental process because human mind can process the input data set by evaluation and judgment of the data.
at has a data string and character groups by evaluation and observation of data.
-“identify the character groups in the data string” recites a mental process because human mind can identify character group in the strings by evaluation and observation.
-“identify group types for the character groups” recites a mental process because human mind can identify group types in the character groups by evaluation and observation.
-“numerically represent the character groups based on the group types” recites a mental process because human mind can represent data numerically by evaluation and judgement.
-“plot the numeric representation to determine a probability distribution for the numeric representations” recites a mental process because human mind can plot numbers to determine probability distribution for the numeric representations by evaluation and judgement and/or with the help of a pen and paper
-“calculate entropy for the data string based on the probability distribution” recites a mental process because human mind can calculate entropy for data string based on probability distribution by evaluation and judging the data.
-“generate an entropy histogram based on the entropy” recites a mental process because human mind can generate an entropy histogram based on the entropy by evaluation and judgement.
-“compare the entropy histogram of the data string to another entropy histogram for another data string from another output data set produced by the data pipeline” recites a mental process because human mind can compare entropies by looking the entropies by observation and evaluation.
-“determine a change in entropy between the entropy histogram and the other histogram” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a change in entropy between entropy histogram and other histogram by evaluation and judgement.
-“determine the change in entropy triggers an entropy threshold, wherein triggering the entropy threshold indicates an error in the data pipeline” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a change in entropy that triggers an error in the data pipeline by evaluation and judgement of entropy data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- "a data pipeline monitoring system", “a computing device that comprises a processor and a memory, wherein the processor is operatively coupled to the memory”, “the memory configured to store program instructions that, when executed by the processor, direct the computing device to”, which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“responsively generates an output dataset that comprises a data string that comprises character groups” is insignificant extra-solution activity as outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“and transfers the data string to the computing device” is insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“receive the data string” is insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“and transfer an alert that indicates the change in entropy and the error in the data pipeline to a database associated with the data pipeline to respond to the change in entropy and the error” is insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“responsively generates an output dataset that comprises a data string that comprises character groups” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“and transfers the data string to the computing device” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“receive the data string” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
-“and transfer an alert that indicates the change in entropy and the error in the data pipeline to a database associated with the data pipeline to respond to the change in entropy and the error” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 8, 15:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "method" and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“monitoring the data pipeline, wherein the data pipeline ingests an input data set, recites a mental process because human mind can monitor the data pipeline by observation and evaluation of the data.
-“processes the input data set” recites a mental process because human mind can process the input data set by evaluation and judgment of the data.
-“responsively generates a data string that comprises character groups” recites a mental process because human mind can generate data strings with character groups by evaluation and judgment of the data.
-“identifying the character groups in the data string” recites a mental process because human mind can identify character group in the strings by evaluation and observation.
-“identifying group types for the character groups” recites a mental process because human mind can identify group types in the character groups by evaluation and observation.
-“numerically representing the character groups based on the group types” recites a mental process because human mind can represent data numerically by evaluation and judgement.
-“plotting the numeric representations to determine a probability distribution for the numeric representations” recites a mental process because human mind can plot the numbers in a graph to determine probability distribution for the numbers by evaluation and judgment of data and/or using a pen and paper.
-“calculating entropy for the data string based on the probability distribution” recites a mental process because human mind can calculate entropy for data string based on probability distribution by evaluation and judging the data.
-“generating an entropy histogram based on the entropy” recites a mental process because human mind can generate an entropy histogram based on the entropy by evaluation and judgement.
-“comparing the entropy histogram of the data string to another entropy histogram for another data string of from another output data set produced by the data pipeline” recites a mental process because human mind can compare entropies by looking the entropies by observation and evaluation.
-“determining a change in entropy between the entropy histogram and the other histogram” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a change in entropy between entropy histogram and other histogram by evaluation and judgement.
-“determining the change in entropy triggers an entropy threshold, wherein triggering the entropy threshold indicates an error in the data pipeline” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a change in entropy that triggers an error in the data pipeline by evaluation and judgement of entropy data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- " a computing device executing a pipeline control module", “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions to determine entropy in strings generated by a data pipeline, wherein the instructions, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to drive a system to perform operations”, which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“and transfers the data string to the computing device” is insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“receiving the data string” is insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“and transferring an alert that indicates the change in entropy and the error in the data pipeline to a database associated with the data pipeline to respond to the change in entropy and the error” is insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“and transfers the data string to the computing device” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“receiving the data string” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
-“and transferring an alert that indicates the change in entropy and the error in the data pipeline to a database associated with the data pipeline to respond to the change in entropy and the error” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2, 9:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“identify a duplicate group comprising a set of identical ones of the character groups” recites a mental process because human mind can identify a duplicate group comprising a set of identical ones of the character groups and
-“assign one of the numeric representations to the duplicate groups” human mind can assign numeric representations based on evaluation and judgement.
Claims 3, 10:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“stem the character groups to remove affixes from the character groups” recites a mental process because human mind can stem the character groups to remove affixes from the character groups by evaluation and judgment.
Claims 4, 11, 17:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“identify similarities between different ones of the character groups and identify the group types of the different ones of the character groups based on the similarities” recites a mental process because human mind can also identify similarities between ones of the character groups and identify the groups types based on similarities by evaluation and judgement.
Claims 5, 12, 18:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
- “determine a normalized entropy based on the calculated entropy for the data string and an amount of the numeric representations that represent the data string” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a normalized entropy based on the calculated entropy and numeric representations by evaluation and judgement.
- “generate the entropy histogram based on the normalized entropy” recites a mental process because human mind can generate the entropy histogram based on the normalized entropy by evaluation and judgment.
Claims 6, 13, 19:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“overlay the entropy histogram on the other histograms” is a mental process because human mind can overlay two histograms by observation and evaluation.
-“measure an amount of overlap between the entropy histogram and other histogram” is a mental process because human mind can measure an amount of overlap between the entropy histogram and other histogram by evaluation and observation.
-“and determine the change in entropy based on the amount of overlap” recites a mental process because human mind can determine the change in entropy based on the amount of overlap by evolution and observation of data.
Claims 7, 14, 20:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
- “determine a statistical distance between the entropy histogram and the other histogram and determine the change in entropy based on the statistical distance” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a statistical distance between entropy and determine change in entropy based on statistical distance for data string by evaluation and judging the data.
Claim 16:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“stemming the character groups to remove affixes from the character groups” recites a mental process because human mind can stem the character groups to remove affixes from the character groups by evaluation and judgment.
-“identifying a duplicate group comprising a set of identical ones of the character groups” recites a mental process because human mind can identify a duplicate group comprising a set of identical ones of the character groups by evolution of judgment of data.
-“assigning one of the numeric representations to the duplicate groups” recites a mental process because human mind can assign one of the numeric representations to the duplicate groups by evaluation and judgment.
Prior art considerations
Prior arts of record Xu et al. (US 2020/0334095) teaches monitoring strings and processing strings and entropy in paragraphs [0013, 0079]. Zhang et al. (US 2019/0130014) teaches identifying character groups and representing character groups in numbers in paragraphs [0027, 0029]. Chen et al. (US 2019/0114554) teaches calculating probability distributions in fig. 6, paragraphs [0073]. Simske et al. (US 2014/009053) teaches comparing entropy histograms in paragraphs [0041, 0044].
Prior arts of records does not explicitly teach “identify group types for the character groups; numerically represent the character groups based on the group types; calculate entropy for the data string based on probability distribution; generate an entropy histogram based on the entropy; compare the entropy histogram of the data string to another entropy histogram for another data string from another output data set produced by the data pipeline; determine a change in entropy between the entropy histogram and the other histogram; determine the change in entropy triggers an entropy threshold, wherein triggering the entropy threshold indicates an error in the data pipeline; and transfer an alert that indicates the change in entropy and the error in the data pipeline to a database associated with the data pipeline to respond to the change in entropy and the error” as recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159