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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/23/2022 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 11/23/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim 15 recites a “computer program product” comprising “computer readable storage media”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage media covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning. Transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Applicant is suggested to add recitation of “non-transitory”. The dependent claims 16-20 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency.
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," 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: The steps of "determining a... Score (RTRS)," "assigning a priority," and selecting a "subset" of data based on that priority describe logical operations and calculations that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
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/Mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – The additional elements (processor, memory, receiving/sending data) are generic computer components and functions.
The claim does not solve a specific technical problem with a technical solution;
rather, it uses a generic computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea of prioritization.
Thus, the elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 elements of utilizing processor, memory, receiving/sending data to perform the steps of the claimed process amount 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. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of receiving information and model configuration information from a client device are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “transmitting data over a network”. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 are further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: repeatedly calculating…, dividing incoming data…, comparing… , queuing plurality of data…, This limitation amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of: repeatedly calculating…, dividing incoming data…, comparing… , queuing plurality of data…, are well understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 shall 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 sending, to a data receiver, a subset of the plurality of data fields based on the priority assigned to the subset of data fields.
Albanese teaches packetizing fata corresponding to priority levels, see abstract, in which he teaches 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”).
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.”).
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
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