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
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, by reciting Collecting, processing and storing audit and log events from the remaining layers to produce multiple performance, business and Health monitoring reports which comprise predictive analytics and anomaly detection (Amendment, 6 – 9).
The examiner disagrees, since that newly limitation represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 - 13, filed 07/ 09/25, with respect to claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 18 under 35 U.S.C 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the prior art dose not teach the Ambient Awareness Context Layer (103) is configured to update a materialized view of the surrounding world, through an Ambient Context Awareness Manager (1031), comprising at least two variables: surrounding environment, and interaction channel location; wherein the combination of the at least two variables allow to improve the dispatcher (1081) decision and response time by providing to the skills (10511) additional data and metadata that value and enrich the data input in order to obtain more accurate and engaging interactions with the user; wherein the Health Monitoring and Reporting Layer (110) is configured to collect, process and store audit and log events from the remaining layers to produce multiple performance, business and Health monitoring reports which comprise predictive analytics and anomaly detection (Amendment, pages 9 – 13).
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, 3 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 18 are directed to a method. They hereby fall under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does not fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 18 recite steps of observation, evaluation, and judgement that can be practically performed by a human, either mentally or with the use of pen and paper.
The limitation of “interpret and manage several types of contextual information from the user input data, the Ambient Awareness Context Layer (103) is configured to update a materialized view of the surrounding world, through an Ambient Context Awareness Manager (1031), comprising at least two variables: surrounding environment, and interaction channel location wherein the combination of the at least two variables allow to improve the dispatcher (1081) decision and response time by providing to the skills (10511) additional data and metadata that value and enrich the data input in order to obtain more accurate and engaging interactions with the user;” in claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 18, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a set of layers arranged in a modular and loosely coupled architecture”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic layers and computing device do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 18 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements “enriching the user input data with cognitive AI processing through the reuse of the input data thus creating enriched standards for all used skills; collect, process and store audit and log events from the remaining layers to produce multiple performance, business and Health monitoring reports which comprise predictive analytics and anomaly detection.”.
The limitation “enriching the user input data with cognitive AI processing through the reuse of the input data thus creating enriched standards for all used skills;”, amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “collect, process and store audit and log events from the remaining layers to produce multiple performance, business and Health monitoring reports which comprise predictive analytics and anomaly detection.”, represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
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, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements (a set of layers arranged in a modular and loosely coupled architecture and computing device) represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 18 as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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 LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on (571)272-7602. 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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658