DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 – 17, 19 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for automatically indicating how extensively software application commands have been investigated, the method comprising: identifying an interaction with a first command occurring within a graphical user interface, wherein the first command is associated with one or more command parameters; updating a command history associated with the first command based on the interaction with the first command by updating at least one of: a progress level value associated with the first command, wherein the progress level value indicates how many command parameters included in the one or more command parameters have been identified as modified; or a coverage level value associated with the first command; and rendering, in the graphical user interface, (i) an icon corresponding to the first command, and (ii) a graphical overlay indicating at least one of the coverage level value or the progress level value.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitations are “identifying an interaction …,” “updating a command history … by updating at least one of a progress level … or a coverage level …” in Prong I step 2A. Other limitations including and “rendering, in the graphical user interface …” are considered as extra-activity solutions for gathering information which are insignificant and outputting information regarding the events is merely an applied application and insignificantly amounts to the judicial exception. Thus, these claims are directed to an abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
That is, other than reciting “a computer-implemented method for automatically indicating …” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind such that the “identifying an interaction …,” “updating a command history …” limitations are mental processes under Prong I of step 2A. Identifying an interaction, updating a command history, computing progress levels and determining coverage levels as described in the specification can be performed as a manual process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the identifying and updating steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Additionally, the step of “rendering, in the graphical user interface …” is a pre/post-activity solution as gathering data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See 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) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11 and 20 are rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1. Additionally, dependent claims 2 – 10 and 12 - 19 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. More specifically, the dependent claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 2, wherein identifying the interaction with the first command comprises identifying either that the first command has been explored or that the first command has been executed (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 3 and 12, wherein updating the command history further comprises setting an explored bit to indicate that the first command has been explored (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 4 and 13, wherein updating the command history further comprises setting a bit in a parameters modified array to indicate that a parameter included in the one or more command parameters has been modified upon the first command being executed, the parameters modified array is included in the command history associated with the first command, and each of the one or more command parameters is represented by a value in the parameters modified array (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 5 and 14, herein updating the command history comprises incorporating the first command into the command history upon the first command being executed (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 6 and 15, wherein the first command is part of a command demonstration, and updating the command history comprises incorporating the first command into the command history upon the command demonstration being executed (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claims 7 and 16, wherein the first command is part of a command sequence, and updating the command history comprises incorporating the first command into the command history upon the command sequence being executed (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claim 8, wherein determining the coverage level value comprises at least one of: determining that the first command has never been explored or executed, determining that the first command has been explored at least once, or determining that the first command has been executed at least once (abstract idea under mental process under Prong I step 2A).
As per claim 9, wherein both the coverage level value and the progress level value are output when the coverage level value indicates that the first command has been executed at least once (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claim 10, wherein the graphical overlay comprises a progress bar that reflects the progress level value associated with the first command (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claim 17, wherein only the coverage level value is output when the coverage level value indicates that the first command has not been executed (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
As per claim 19, further comprising changing from a default state, which is associated with a first parameter included in the one or more command parameters and displayed in the graphical user interface, to a new state indicating that the first parameter has been modified upon the first command being executed (additional element under Prong II step 2A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuscher et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0117082) in view of Han et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0050268) (Han hereinafter) and Tsukuda (U.S. Publication 2015/0212854) (Tsukuda hereinafter)..
9. As per claim 1, Kuscher teaches updating a command history associated with the first command based on the interaction with the first command by updating at least one of:
a progress level value associated with the first command, wherein the progress level value indicates how many command parameters included in the one or more command parameters have been identified as modified [“The method also includes selecting a subset of the plurality of task items based on user activity information obtained from a server over a network or collected locally by a processor of a computing device, and stored locally in a memory of the computing device. The subset of task items includes at least two different task types. The user activity information includes a frequency of a user performing a particular task item, how recently a particular task item was performed, online user history, location of the computing device, operating system and resources of the computing device, and a current time or date,” ¶ 0007; frequency of a user performing a particular task item mapped to progress level]; or
a coverage level value associated with the first command [“The number and order at the task items included in the launcher may be dynamically selected and configured based on user activity such as the frequency of a user performing a particular task item, how recent a particular task item was performed, online user history, location of the computing device, operating system and resources of the computing device, time and date, etc. Each of the task items can be associated with a weighted value that is calculated based on the user activity. The selected task items may be arranged from display to the user in a single surface of a graphical user interface to allow the user to more easily initiate tasks and or resume tasks that are likely to be of interest to the user,” ¶ 0017].
Kuscher does not explicitly disclose but Han discloses a computer-implemented method for automatically indicating how extensively software application commands have been investigated, the method comprising: identifying an interaction with a first command occurring within a graphical user interface, wherein the first command is associated with one or more command parameters [“in response to a user interacting with one or more of the CAD objects 18 by creating, selecting, modifying, or adding the CAD objects 18 to the design, in step 54, the CAD application 12 of the present invention automatically extracts the attributes associated with the CAD objects,” ¶ 0024; CAD objects mapped to command, attributes mapped to parameters].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher and Han available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher to include the capability managing the selection and manipulation of CAD objects of as taught by Han, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by evaluating how users interact with system capabilities.
Kuscher and Han do not explicitly disclose but Tsukuda discloses rendering, in the graphical user interface, (i) an icon corresponding to the first command, and (ii) a graphical overlay indicating at least one of the coverage level value or the progress level value [“As shown in FIG. 8, the progress status screen 60 includes a workflow display field 61 that indicates a workflow 20 under execution, and the functions that have been already executed in the workflow 20 are enclosed by, for example, a hatched area 62. The progress status screen 60 shown in FIG. 8 represents that the scanning function in STEP 1 in the workflow 20 has been already executed,” ¶ 0071; workflow display field mapped to icon, hatched area mapped to graphical overlay indicating progress level (step(s) executed in the workflow)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher and Han to include the capability of highlighting command execution status as taught by Tsukuda, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency and usability by enhancing user insight into command execution status.
10. As per claim 2, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Han further teaches wherein identifying the interaction with the first command comprises identifying either that the first command has been explored or that the first command has been executed [“in response to a user interacting with one or more of the CAD objects 18 by creating, selecting, modifying, or adding the CAD objects 18 to the design, in step 54, the CAD application 12 of the present invention automatically extracts the attributes associated with the CAD objects,” ¶ 0024; user interaction including selection and modification suggests exploring].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher and Han available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher to include the capability managing the selection and manipulation of CAD objects of as taught by Han, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by evaluating how users interact with system capabilities.
11. As per claim 11, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
12. As per claim 12, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
13. As per claim 20, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
14. Claims 3 – 5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi, Han and Tsukuda in further view of Clavin (U.S. Publication 2012/0226981) (Clavin hereinafter).
15. As per claim 3, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly disclose but Clavin discloses wherein updating the command history further comprises setting an explored bit to indicate that the first command has been explored [“Execution status may include whether the command was not executed and perhaps a reason if the device effected provides an error description in a message,” ¶ 0050; “the device controlling unit 540 updates the device command history data in the device data store 42 with data such as the device, the command type, time, date, identifying data for the detected users, identifying data for the user who made the command, and execution status for the at least one device,” ¶ 0100; execution status mapped to explored bit, suggests that commands have been explored/executed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Clavin available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda to include the capability of tracking command execution status as taught by Clavin, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by storing user interaction with system capabilities.
16. As per claim 4, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly disclose but Clavin discloses wherein updating the command history further comprises setting a bit in a parameters modified array to indicate that a parameter included in the one or more command parameters has been modified upon the first command being executed, the parameters modified array is included in the command history associated with the first command, and each of the one or more command parameters is represented by a value in the parameters modified array [“Execution status may include whether the command was not executed and perhaps a reason if the device effected provides an error description in a message,” ¶ 0050; “the device controlling unit 540 updates the device command history data in the device data store 42 with data such as the device, the command type, time, date, identifying data for the detected users, identifying data for the user who made the command, and execution status for the at least one device,” ¶ 0100; execution status mapped to setting a bit, suggests that commands have been explored/executed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Clavin available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda to include the capability of tracking command execution status as taught by Clavin, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by storing user interaction with system capabilities.
17. As per claim 5, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly disclose but Clavin discloses wherein updating the command history comprises incorporating the first command into the command history upon the first command being executed [“the device controlling unit 540 sends the command in step 710 to the at least one other electronic device. Optionally, the device controlling unit 540 updates the device command history data in the device data store 42 with data such as the device, the command type, time, date, identifying data for the detected users, identifying data for the user who made the command, and execution status for the at least one device,” ¶ 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Clavin available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda to include the capability of tracking command execution status as taught by Clavin, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by storing user interaction with system capabilities.
18. As per claim 13, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
19. As per claim 14, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
20. Claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda in further view of Endou (U.S. Publication 2010/0064290) (Endou hereinafter).
21. As per claim 6, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly disclose but Endou discloses wherein the first command is part of a command demonstration, and updating the command history comprises incorporating the first command into the command history upon the command demonstration being executed [“the work content capturing unit 104 may capture the work content 102 by referring to a command execution history that is updated every time the OS 103 executes a command. In any case, the work content capturing unit 104 functions as capturing means for capturing the content of a plurality of works executed in the test server 100 together with the execution order,” ¶ 0109; test execution suggests demonstration].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Endou available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda to include the capability of tracking executed command in a test environment as taught by Endou, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by storing user interaction with system capabilities.
22. As per claim 7, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly disclose but Endou discloses wherein the first command is part of a command sequence, and updating the command history comprises incorporating the first command into the command history upon the command sequence being executed [“the work content capturing unit 104 may capture the work content 102 by referring to a command execution history that is updated every time the OS 103 executes a command. In any case, the work content capturing unit 104 functions as capturing means for capturing the content of a plurality of works executed in the test server 100 together with the execution order,” ¶ 0109; plurality of works executed in light of an execution order suggests command sequence].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Endou available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda to include the capability of tracking executed command in a test environment as taught by Endou, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by storing user interaction with system capabilities.
23. As per claim 15, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
24. As per claim 16, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
25. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda in further view of Konishi et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0134582) (Konishi hereinafter).
26. As per claim 8, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly discloses but Konishi discloses wherein determining the coverage level value comprises at least one of: determining that the first command has never been explored or executed, determining that the first command has been explored at least once, or determining that the first command has been executed at least once [“The parameter selector 13 extracts one or multiple activity information (hereinafter, referred to as an activity information set) containing an activity parameter with a value that is within an extraction range with reference to a value of each activity parameter included in the activity information of the target user stored in the activity information memory 12. In addition, the parameter selector 13 calculates, for each activity parameter, a user density that indicates a variance of the value of each activity parameter in the extracted activity information set, and a user similarity that indicates a similarity of the parameter value of another user to the parameter value of the target user,” ¶ 0042; user density mapped to coverage level, user similarity mapped to activity level].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Konishi available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda to include the capability of displaying command status as taught by Konishi, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by providing execution status indicators to users.
27. As per claim 9, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly disclose but Konishi discloses wherein both the coverage level value and the progress level value are output when the coverage level value indicates that the first command has been executed at least once [“The presentation information generator 15 generates presentation information indicating the position of the target user (the relative position in the set of the values of the presentation target parameter included in the activity information set of the value of the presentation target parameter of the target user) based on the position information received from the position calculator 14. The presentation information is an image displaying the position of the target user or a notification message of notifying the target user of the position. The presentation information generator 15 transmits the generated presentation information to the terminal device 2B,” ¶ 0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Konishi available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda to include the capability of displaying command status as taught by Konishi, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by providing execution status indicators to users.
28. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Konishi in further view of Liang (U.S. Publication 2014/0258910) (Liang hereinafter).
29. As per claim 10, Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Konishi teach the computer-implemented method of claim 9. Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Konishi do not explicitly disclose but Liang discloses wherein the graphical overlay comprises a progress bar that reflects the progress level value associated with the first command [“the user interface controller 322 may generate a progress bar or similar graphical indication that is continually or repeatedly updated on a display while the computer tasks of the command are executed to indicate the amount of progress made in the execution of the computer tasks,” ¶ 0056]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda, Konishi and Liang available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Konishi to include the capability of displaying command execution progress as taught by Liang, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by providing visual status indicators to users.
30. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda in further view of O’Toole et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0091923) (O’Toole hereinafter).
31. As per claim 17, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly disclose but O’Toole discloses wherein only the coverage level value is output when the coverage level value indicates that the first command has not been executed [“The CLI telemetry data 202 is a repository of such commands along with the list of parameters used with each command, the success status of the command execution, a short description of a failure, an error message and the exception type when there is a failure,” ¶ 0034; unexecuted command mapped to execution failure].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Liang available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda to include the capability of displaying command execution failure status as taught by O’Toole, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by providing status to users.
32. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda in further view of Hejza Ditwiller (U.S. Publication 2003/0142066) (Hejza Ditwiller hereinafter).
33. As per claim 19, Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11. Kuscher, Han and Tsukuda do not explicitly disclose but Hejza Ditwiller discloses changing from a default state, which is associated with a first parameter included in the one or more command parameters and displayed in the graphical user interface to a new state indicating that the first parameter has been modified upon the first command being executed [“there is described a device arranged for performing plural functions, each function having plural parameters, each parameter with a parameter current value that is one of a plurality of parameter allowed values, each parameter being preset to a default value, the device having a display, the device arranged to modify a parameter current value in accordance with a method comprising a device step (a) of displaying a current function with the current function's plural parameters and parameter current values,” ¶ 0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kuscher, Han, Tsukuda and Hejza Ditwiller available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of tracking and evaluating user actions as disclosed by Kuscher and Han to include the capability of displaying command parameter status as taught by Hejza Ditwiller, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usability by providing status to users.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
34. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35. Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 that the noted method steps require the use of a computing device and are not steps that can be practically performed in the human mind or using a pen and paper. However, the noted method steps are merely details of an algorithm implemented using generic computing technology. Additionally, as described above, the noted limitations can be practically performed as a mental and/or manual process.
36. Applicant argues on pages 10 – 12 that the claims as a whole integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, reciting an improvement in computing technology. However, the recited claims are analogous to examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show improvement in computer-functionality including accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). Additionally, the subject matter at issue in Ex parte Desjardins involves AI and machine learning training methods. The subject matter at issue here is not related to AI or machine learning, thus Ex parte Desjardins is not analogous to the instant claims.
37. Applicant additionally argues that at least one of the claim limitations is not well-understood, routine and conventional in the field or adds one or more unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular application. However, as evidenced by the 103 prior art rejections recited above, the limitations as a whole are present in the prior art and are thus not unconventional and non-routine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
38. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
39. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights