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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 06/11/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-8, 10-18, 20 are pending.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of automatically approving a change request within an organization.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 11, 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
creating a change request (CR) based on a received request to create the CR;
defining a plurality of conditions associated with the CR, wherein the plurality of conditions are independently defined for each of an operations level, a domain level, and a security levelcomprises one or more conditions with respect to the operations level, one or more conditions with respect to the domain level, and one or more conditions with respect to the security level;
determining whether the CR is high priority based on an identifier included with the CR indicating whether the CR is high priority;
based on determining that the CR is high priority—
determining whether the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level within the organization, and
based on determining that the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level within the organization, automatically approving the CR and executing, a task requested by the CR that is high priority, without determining whether the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the domain level and the one or more conditions with respect to the security level:
based on determining that the CR is not high priority, automatically approving the CR and executing a task requested by the approved CR that is not high priority, based on a determination that the CR meets the one or more conditions with respect to the operations level, the one or more conditions with respect to the domain level, and the one or more conditions with respect to the security level: and
based on a task type of the CR being a remote method of procedure, not automatically approving the CR and delegating the CR for manual review
The above limitations are reciting a process by which an organization processes a change request using a set of rules. The claimed determining whether to approve a change request is something that can be done by people. Human beings can perform the claimed steps of approving a change request by using a paper request and can perform the recited steps to determine if the request is to be approved, and under what circumstances a request is to be approved. Obtaining approval for something within an organization such as a change to the organizational structure or change to infrastructure is known to be performed by people, as the specification admits in paragraph 002 where it is disclosed that change requests are known to be manually processed by an organization. Approving change requests for an organization, such as changes to government or changes to the operations of a large company, is reciting a commercial practice that is undertaken all the time within different organizations. The claimed steps also are reciting a set of rules or instructions that are to be followed for approving a change request when it is received, and for that reason the claimed invention is also considered to be managing interactions between people (the requestor of the change and the people evaluating the change request), which also represents a certain method of organizing human activities. For these reasons the claims are found to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities abstract idea that is the act of approving a change request within an organization based on a set of rules.
For claim 1, the additional element(s) of the claim is/are the recited at least one processor coupled to a network. The claim recites that the steps/functions (that define the abstract idea) are being performed “by the at least one processor”. The claimed network is not involved in any of the claimed steps and is just recited as being coupled to the processor.
For claims 11, 20, the additional elements are the claimed at least one memory storage with executable instructions and at least one processor that is configured to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea (claim 11), and a non-transitory computer readable medium that comprises computer instructions to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea.
For claims 1, 11, 20, This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (apparatus) with at least one processor and memory that are coupled to a network such as the Internet, where the at least one processor is simply being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with at least one processor and memory (CRM), to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction for one to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) 11, 20, does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with at least one processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea, as was addressed above for the 2nd prong. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not amount to reciting significantly more at step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claims 2-8, 10, the claims are reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 1. The dependent claims simply recite more about how the approval process works and under what circumstances a change request is approved. The claims recite the sending of the approved change request to an approval board, that can be a board made up of employees of an organization or can be a board of directors that has final approval on a change request. Executing the change request is also part of the abstract idea. All that has been claimed is more about the abstract idea. No additional elements have been claimed for consideration at the 2nd prong and step 2B. For the method claims 1-8, 10, there are no additional elements claimed at all. The only elements recited are those that define the abstract idea.
For claims 12-18, the claims are reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 11. The dependent claims simply recite more about how the approval process works and under what circumstances a change request is approved. The claims recite the sending of the approved change request to an approval board, that can be a board made up of employees of an organization or can be a board of directors that has final approval on a change request. Executing the change request is also part of the abstract idea. All that has been claimed is more about the abstract idea. The additional elements of the claim are the memory storage and the at least one processor that has already been addressed for claim 11. The dependent claims 12-18 do not introduce any further additional elements for consideration beyond those recited in claim 11 and that have already been addressed. The additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (apparatus) with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), as was stated for claim 11.
Therefore, for the above reasons claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues the claims as they were previously pending on pages 11-13. The applicant argues that the claims do not merely recite approving a change request and argues that the claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem in the field of change request management. The applicant argues that prior approaches to approving change requests were not efficient and was a time-consuming process. The applicant argues that the solution is an automated rule-based process for implementing a change request that is fast, flexible, cost effective, and uses minimal computing resources. The applicant argues that the solution is provided by a rule-based system that applies different pathways to reduce computing resource usage. As to the fact that the applicant is arguing automation of the change request process, this is done by using a computer and itself does not render the claims eligible. The argued fast, flexible, cost-effective process of approving a change request is what defines the abstract idea and is not technical in nature. The argument about computing resources being reduced does not appear to have any support in the specification other than a generic statement that the system is fast, flexible, cost-effective process of approving a change request that utilizes minimal computing resources. Just because the specification describes the invention (as written by the inventor/applicant) as being efficient and a simplified process that does not require human intervention (automation) does not mean that computer resources are being reduced by performing the abstract idea. The applicant is broadly comparing the claimed invention to an unknown conventional process with more steps than is claimed, to make the assertion that the claims are improving technology by reducing computer usage. This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not recite anything that results in the at least one processor of the claim being improved in any manner such as by reducing computer resource usage. The mere automation of a process by using a processor to execute the abstract idea does not result in an improvement to technology that would render the claims as eligible.
The argued use of the defined conditions at multiple organization levels, priority-based routing that bypasses certain approval levels for high priority requests and task based routing that delegates certain requests for manual review (by a person) is arguing the abstract idea itself is the particular solution to the problem of an inefficient change request process. Any alleged innovation lies in the abstract idea itself and not in an improvement to computer technology or the functioning of the claimed processor. The examiner notes that even innovative and new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas and in this case the alleged improvement lies in the abstract idea itself and not in an improvement to computer technology.
On page 13 the applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that is the use of the defined conditions at multiple levels, user of an identifier to determine a priority status, and the routing that is claimed. The examiner notes that the argued elements are the claim elements that define the abstract idea. The argued element are not additional elements. The argument that the claimed process itself is an additional element that is a specific technical implementation that meaningfully limits the claim scope is not persuasive.
On page 14 the applicant argues the currently pending claims and alleges that the claimed invention is reducing computer resources. The applicant relies upon the limitation of the processor that is used to perform the recited steps/functions as being something that results in computing resources being reduced. As was stated previously, this argument has minimal support in the specification as originally filed because the specification did not disclose or link any alleged improvement to technology to the execution of the abstract idea other than by way of general allegation. The applicant argues that expediting the approval of a change request and execution of a task request as claimed results in an improvement to technology in the form of reducing computer resource usage. This is not persuasive because the mere use of a computer to automate a change request process to make it automated does not result in an improvement to technology. One could equally argue that by having people manually process the change request it saves computing resources because none are being used such that the manually executed process improves technology. The claims are simply reciting that the change request approval process is being implemented by a computer, which does not improve the functioning of the at least one processor that is recited in the claims by simply automating the process of approving or denying a change request in the claimed manner. Again, just because the change request process is different than other processes and might have less steps (the argued bypass) does not mean that technology is being improved when it is being executed by a computer. That means that anyone with a change request process that is easier, such as just approving all processes from the start, is improving technology. That is a position that is dubious at best.
The applicant argues that “This selective bypass of domain level and security level checks for high priority CRs results in more efficient resource utilization by the processor (that would otherwise be expended through processing of the domain level and security level conditional checks).”. This is not persuasive. By executing the claimed steps, it is clear that computing resources are being used by the processor. Arguing that the claimed process is more efficient than a different change request process that has more steps is not persuasive and is an argument directed to the abstract idea, not an improvement to technology. Any alleged improvement lies in the abstract idea itself. The processor and/or its functioning is not being improved in manner by performing the claimed change request process.
On page 15 the applicant argues that the claims require at least one processor to execute a task and argues that this provides for integration into a practical application. This is not persuasive because the use of the processor to execute a task is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea (perform the task). The processor is simply being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea. This does not provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP2106.05(f).
On page 16, the applicant argues that the ordered combination of claimed steps cannot be done by a human. The applicant argues that a human cannot create a change request. The applicant argues that a human cannot define conditions at operations domain, and security levels, and argues that humans cannot determine priority based on an identifier. The applicant argues that humans cannot automatically approve and execute a task and cannot delegate for manual review. The allegation is devoid of any reasoning or explanation as to why a person cannot do what is claimed. A person can create a change request by using a piece of paper to write down a request. People can define conditions for operations, domain, and security, by writing them down, and a human can view an identifier (data per se) to determine a priority, such as a request that is indicated as being “high priority”. People can approve change requests, can execute a task (write a message, talk to a person, make an organizational change) and can delegate something for manual review. The argument that humans cannot do what is claimed is not persuasive. The act of bypassing domain and security checks for a high priority change request is not a technological process that conserves computing resources and does not result in an improvement to technology.
The argument on page 16 for the dependent claims relies on the arguments for the independent claims is not persuasive for the same reasons addressed above for claims 1, 11, 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sadeghi et al. (20190324458) discloses a situation where a change request for a vehicle system can be authorized when it is labeled as a high priority change request, see paragraph 046. This is relevant to the part of the claim that recites the high priority request as being approved automatically without going through additional screening, as is it known in the art that when something is important and a change is needed the request can be approved automatically by expediting the authorization. This aspect is not novel or non-obvious; however, the claimed invention in totality is not taught or suggested by the cited art of record. A reasons for allowance will be set forth if and when the applicant is allowed.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights