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 .
Remarks
In response to communication files on May 14, 2026, claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended by applicant's request. Therefore, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application.
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15,
Step 1 Analysis: The claim is directed to a method, an information handling system, and to a computer program product, and which falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: claims 1, 8, and 15 recites,
The limitations of:
“determining a current Real-Time Resources Score (RTRS), wherein the RTRS is a forecast of the information handling system's ability to handle incoming data transmissions” is a mental process which can be performed by the human mind. A human can determined information.
“in response to the RTRS being less than a current data accumulation rate:
assigning a priority to each of the plurality of data fields included in the incoming data record based on a priority assessment of the respective data fields”, is a mental process which can be performed by the human mind. A human can assign level of priority to data.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the additional elements: “receiving an incoming data record, wherein the incoming data record includes a plurality of data fields, and wherein the incoming data is vertically segmented into vertical data fields via a vertical data priority division process and sending, to a data receiver, a subset of the plurality of data fields based on the priority assigned to the subset of data fields, wherein the subset of the plurality of data fields transmitted comprises less than all data fields of the incoming data record when the RTRS indicates insufficient transmission capacity”, “processor ”, “memory”, “ a data receiver”, “ a computer program product comprising computer readable storage medium”, and “a system”. The limitation of “receiving” and “sending” are an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. “processor ”, “memory”, “ a data receiver”, “ a computer program product comprising computer readable storage medium”, and “a system, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. With respect to the "receiving and sending” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … 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 thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Lastly the recitation of “processor ”, “memory”, “ a data receiver”, “ a computer program product comprising computer readable storage medium”, and “A system are recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 are further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “calculating…”, further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. The claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14, and 18-19, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 , further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claims. The claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent eligible. Deploying is extra solution activity and does not integrate into a practical application and the courts have recognized as well-understood routine and conventional see MPEP 2106(d) - Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 13, and 20, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 , this additional elements of using a computer as a tool to perform the recited step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adjaoute (US Pub. 2020/0074472) (Eff filing date of app: 11/11/2019) in view of Albanese et al (US Pat. 5,617,541) (Eff filing date of app: 12/21/1994)(Hereinafter Albanese).
As to claims 1, 8, 15, Adjaoute teaches a method implemented by an information handling system that includes a processor and a memory accessible by the processor, the method comprising:
receiving an incoming data record, wherein the incoming data record includes a plurality of data fields (see p. 55, records with plurality of predefined data fields) ;
determining a current Real-Time Resources Score (RTRS), wherein the RTRS is a forecast of the information handling system's ability to handle incoming data transmissions (see p. 28, prediction, p 185, real time prediction and scoring);
in response to the RTRS being less than a current data accumulation rate:
assigning a priority to each of the plurality of data fields included in the incoming data
record based on a priority assessment of the respective data fields (see p. 215, “The default distance measure used in the training process is a Weighted-Euclidean distance measure that uses input weights “bi” to assign priority values to the fields in a training table”).
Adjaoute does not expressly teach wherein the incoming data is vertically segmented into
vertical data fields via a vertical data priority division process; and sending, to a data receiver, a subset of the plurality of data fields based on the priority assigned to the subset of data fields, wherein the subset of the plurality of data fields comprises less than all data fields of the incoming data record when the RTRS indicates insufficient transmission capacity.
Albanese teaches packetizing fata corresponding to priority levels, see abstract, in which
he teaches wherein the incoming data is vertically segmented into vertical data fields via a vertical data priority division process (see abstract, “a plurality of assigned priority levels for specified portions of the stored message such that portions of the stored message have respective assigned priority levels” and col 6, ln 39-42, “the data 122 to be transmitted is divided into three blocks 170-1, 170-2 and 170-3 of data, having respective lengths of b1, b2 and b3” and col 6, 66-67 and col 7, 1-2); and
sending, to a data receiver, a subset of the plurality of data fields based on the priority
assigned to the subset of data fields (see abstract, “The transmitting data processing system includes memory for storing the data to be transmitted, programmable data processing circuitry, and data transmission apparatus for transmitting an encoded representation of the stored message as a sequence of data packets. Priority data, stored in the memory, represents a plurality of assigned priority levels for specified portions of the stored message such that portions of the stored message have respective assigned priority levels”), wherein the subset of the plurality of data fields transmitted comprises less than all data fields of the incoming data record when the RTRS indicates insufficient transmission capacity (see col 7, 40-48, “data filtering based on priority levels may be required when the transmitted data is sent to receiving devices or media with limited data bandwidth. More specifically, lower priority data might be deleted from the transmitted encoded data by a network bridge 109 (see FIG. 1) if the bandwidth of the receiving local area network is insufficient to handle the full bandwidth of the transmitted data”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Adjaoute by the teaching of Albanese, because sending, to a data receiver, a subset of the plurality of data fields …, would enable the method to computer systems for encoding data so as to enable lossless reconstruction of received data even when a portion of the data has been lost or corrupted during transmission of the data to the recipient.
As to claims 4, 11, 18, Adjaoute as modified teaches the method further comprising:
dividing the incoming data record into a plurality of priority-based queues based on the priority assigned to the data fields (see Albanese, col. 6, ln 66-67 and col 7, ln 1-3, “transmitted data can be divided into an unrestricted number of distinct blocks, and that each such block can have a distinct assigned priority level.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 5-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 BELIX M ORTIZ DITREN whose telephone number is (571)272-4081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am -5pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
BELIX M. ORTIZ DITREN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/Belix M Ortiz Ditren/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights