DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 .
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 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
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 06/05/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 16, 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims in the previous office action have been maintained.
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, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4-6 are directed towards a method, Claims 7, 8, 12-14 are directed towards a computer program product, and claims 15, 18-20 are directed towards a system, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including virtualizing a data center. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, and 18-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 7, and 15) are directed to managing task data, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
a computer-implemented method comprising:
collecting, by one or more sensors, workflow data from physical systems of a data center;
virtualizing, using the workflow data collected from the physical systems, the data center, the virtualizing the data center generating a virtual model of the data center,
extracting, from the workflow data of the data center, a set of tasks corresponding to the first physical system;
extracting, from an existing task in the set of tasks, a set of keywords;
expanding, into an expanded set of keywords, the set of keywords, the expanded set of keywords comprising a new keyword with a semantic relationship to a keyword in the set of keywords;
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interaction such as business relations(See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system ( Claim 7 computer program product, computer readable storage medium, processor, sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system; Claim 15 computer readable storage media, processor, sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system). The claims recite the steps are performed by the sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system.
The limitations of
virtualizing, using the workflow data collected from the physical systems, the data center, the virtualizing the data center generating a virtual model of the data center,
wherein the virtual model of the data center comprises a first digital twin corresponding to a first physical system of the data center, the first physical system comprising a server system, and
wherein the virtual model of the data center comprises a second digital twin corresponding to a second physical system of the data center, the second physical system comprising a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system;
generating, using the expanded set of keywords, a new task corresponding to the second physical system, the new task corresponding to a different control mechanism than the existing task;
generating, by simulating execution of the new task, a result of simulated execution of the new task;
causing, responsive to determining that the result of simulated execution of the new task meets a success criterion, execution of the new task by the second physical system, thereby causing the virtual model to execute the new task, and wherein the new task comprises adjusting temperature by the HVAC system; and
adjusting, based on a result of execution of the new task, the virtual model, the virtual model comprising the workflow data, the set of tasks, and the expanded set of keywords, the adjusting the virtual model keeping the virtual model conforming to a current state of the data center.
are mere data gathering and processing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system. The sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary gathering and processing.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
virtualizing, using the workflow data collected from the physical systems, the data center, the virtualizing the data center generating a virtual model of the data center,
wherein the virtual model of the data center comprises a first digital twin corresponding to a first physical system of the data center, the first physical system comprising a server system, and
wherein the virtual model of the data center comprises a second digital twin corresponding to a second physical system of the data center, the second physical system comprising a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system;
generating, using the expanded set of keywords, a new task corresponding to the second physical system, the new task corresponding to a different control mechanism than the existing task;
generating, by simulating execution of the new task, a result of simulated execution of the new task;
causing, responsive to determining that the result of simulated execution of the new task meets a success criterion, execution of the new task by the second physical system, thereby causing the virtual model to execute the new task, and wherein the new task comprises adjusting temperature by the HVAC system; and
adjusting, based on a result of execution of the new task, the virtual model, the virtual model comprising the workflow data, the set of tasks, and the expanded set of keywords, the adjusting the virtual model keeping the virtual model conforming to a current state of the data center.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to processing and transmitting data are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 4-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 18-20 do not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 8 recite a storage device to transfer data, claim 9 recite a storage device to generate an invoice. The dependent claims 4-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 18-20 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 18-20 recites sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of receiving and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 18-20 sensors, system, model, server, control mechanism, HVAC system, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 4-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 18-20 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 1, 7, and 15. Therefore claims 4-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 18-20 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 06/05/2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 8-15 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
a computer-implemented method comprising:
collecting, by one or more sensors, workflow data from physical systems of a data center;
virtualizing, using the workflow data collected from the physical systems, the data center, the virtualizing the data center generating a virtual model of the data center,
wherein the virtual model of the data center comprises a first digital twin corresponding to a first physical system of the data center, the first physical system comprising a server system, and
wherein the virtual model of the data center comprises a second digital twin corresponding to a second physical system of the data center, the second physical system comprising a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system;
extracting, from the workflow data of the data center, a set of tasks corresponding to the first physical system;
extracting, from an existing task in the set of tasks, a set of keywords;
expanding, into an expanded set of keywords, the set of keywords, the expanded set of keywords comprising a new keyword with a semantic relationship to a keyword in the set of keywords;
generating, using the expanded set of keywords, a new task corresponding to the second physical system, the new task corresponding to a different control mechanism than the existing task;
generating, by simulating execution of the new task, a result of simulated execution of the new task;
causing, responsive to determining that the result of simulated execution of the new task meets a success criterion, execution of the new task by the second physical system, thereby causing the virtual model to execute the new task, and wherein the new task comprises adjusting temperature by the HVAC system; and
adjusting, based on a result of execution of the new task, the virtual model, the virtual model comprising the workflow data, the set of tasks, and the expanded set of keywords, the adjusting the virtual model keeping the virtual model conforming to a current state of the data center.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing task data, which constitutes methods related to commercial interactions such as legal obligations; business relations which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The modeling/simulating is comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
In regards to arguments at pg. 9 and 10
“As amended, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but instead recite a specific technological improvement in machine-learning-based dialog summarization systems”…” Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 7, and 15 to more explicitly recite the simulation-and-gating operation””
The Examiner is not sure why the Applicant has argued or mentioned “As amended, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but instead recite a specific technological improvement in machine-learning-based dialog summarization systems.”, other than to argue that claims are similar to Ex Parte Desjardins. If so, Examiner finds the Board determined the improvements in Desjardins to be directed to addressing problems arising in the context of a technical improvements to machine learning systems, which overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of AI and machine learning inventions. There is no similar technological problem or solution here in the Applicant’s claims. Additionally, as the filed spec. or claims does not mention machine learning at all.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 11 that Applicant points to as not Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity :
“However, here the independent claims recite a data center and its physical systems (including a server system and an HVAC system), and require collecting workflow data from the physical systems of a data center using one or more sensors, generating a new task corresponding to a different control mechanism, and causing execution of the new task in the recited system context.”
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interaction such as business relations(See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II), as well as, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as recited, described or set forth above, could be argued as implementable through computer-aided mental processes, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a) ¶3, 3), and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, such as by computer-aided evaluation, judgement and observation. As, these steps/this argument supports that the claims are directed towards the Organizing Human Activity, by collecting and analyzing data to determining the new task. The Examiner finds Applicants aforementioned remarks are directed to improving a business process/operation and not improvements to a technology or technological field, as the claims are not improving data center or the physical systems (including a server system and an HVAC system).
Regarding, the steps at pg. 12 and 13 that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the following steps and arguments of:
“they require simulating execution of the generated task to obtain a result of simulated execution, and then causing execution of the task only when the result meets a success criterion.”;
“The invention is framed as automating digital twin model maintenance that is "too complex for humans...in real time."”
seems to describe a “particular way” of managing task data. “ The Applicant is basically relying on the system elements of modeling/simulating as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Then, Regarding,
Pg. 15 “The Specification describes simulating execution of the generated task, applying a success criterion, and causing execution in the modeled entity when the success criterion is met.”;
Pg. 12 “then causing execution of the task only when the result meets a success criterion”
The Applicant is admitting that the claims are conditionally and if success criterion is met, but if the success criterion is not met, there is no more steps therefore no practical application for execution or improvement. Furthermore, the success criterion happens based in the task performed by a human in Applicant’s spec at 0021, which is an example of Organizing Human Activity.
Furthermore, at 0033 the Applicant recites that “the illustrative embodiments may be implemented with respect to any type of data, data source, or access to a data source over a data network. Any type of data storage device may provide the data to an embodiment of the invention, either locally at a data processing system or over a data network, within the scope of the invention. Where an embodiment is described using a mobile device, any type of data storage device suitable for use with the mobile device may provide the data to such embodiment, either locally at the mobile device or over a data network, within the scope of the illustrative embodiments.” This citation is a strong indicator that the technical application is NOT particular, and furthermore the claim invention does not “improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.” or “an improvement to another technology or technical field.
Lastly, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing task data will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Al-Shameri et al., U.S. Pub. 20100223276, (discussing the data mining and modeling of information ).
Northrup et al., W.O. Pub. 2019169039, (discussing the structuring and modeling of a plurality of things).
Veale et al., Governing Machine Learning That Matters, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10078626/1/thesis_final_corrected_mveale.pdf, Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP) University College London, Doctoral Thesis, 2019 (discussing the use of modeling and tasking).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights