DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
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 Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1, 7, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 in the previous office action are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments, however a new 101 rejections was added.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 in the previous office action are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
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 1-6 are directed towards a method, Claims 7-14 are directed towards a computer program product, and claims 15-20 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 1-20, 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, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media. The claims recite the steps are performed by the sensors, system, model, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media.
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, the generating the new task causing the virtual model to execute the new task;
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 causing executing the new task in the first physical system or the second physical system.
are mere data gathering and output 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, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media. The p sensors, system, model, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), sensors, system, model, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The sensors, system, model, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media 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, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media. 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 output.
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, the generating the new task causing the virtual model to execute the new task;
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 causing executing the new task in the first physical system or the second physical system.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data and 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, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media 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 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 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 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 recites sensors, system, model, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of receiving and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 recites sensors, system, model, simulation, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 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 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 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.
Reasons for Removing the Prior Art Rejection
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as to claims 1-20 are removed in light of Applicant's claims and remarks of 12/22/2025, which are deemed persuasive as to independent claim 1. The reasons for withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found at the following claim limitations of 12/22/2025 at claim 1 as follows:
Claim 1
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, the generating the new task causing the virtual model to execute the new task;
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 causing executing the new task in the first physical system[[.]] or the second physical system.
Applicant’s Remarks of 12/22/2025 at pg. 22-27 as follows:
“Nowhere in the prior art is there any mention of at least the features "collecting, by one or more sensors, workflow data from physical systems of a 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,""wherein the virtual model of the data center comprises a second digital twin corresponding to a second physical system of the data center,""extracting, from the workflow data of the data center, a set of tasks corresponding to the first physical system," and "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, the generating the new task causing the virtual model to execute the new task." Support for these features may be found in at least paragraphs [0002], [0021], [0027], [0031], [0086] of Applicant specification. For reference, paragraph [0002] recites, in part:
A digital twin is a virtual model designed to accurately reflect a physical entity, for example a data center, a business, or a city. The physical entity being modelled typically includes various sensors or other means of monitoring the physical entity's functionality and performance. This data is then relayed to a processing system and applied to the digital copy. Using this data, the digital twin model can be used to monitor and analyze aspects of the modelled entity, forecast future needs, and simulate changes to the modelled entity such as "what if' scenarios and alternative processes. If a modelled change proves to be an improvement, the change can be applied to improve the modelled entity.
(Emphasis Added). Further, paragraph [0021] recites, in part:
For example, consider a data center being modelled. From workflow data of the data center, an embodiment might identify "submit initial workload" and "generate more workload" tasks, generated by a client of the data center. An embodiment might identify a "perform workload" task, in which servers of the data center perform workload submitted by a client, and a "risk analysis" task in which risks to the servers are evaluated. An embodiment might identify two tasks of the building's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system: "collect metrics" (e.g., of the temperature of a server room) and "adjust temperature". In addition, an embodiment might identify a "review dashboard" task performed by a human responsible for monitoring the data center being modelled. The "adjust temperature" task might include a task name of "adjust temperature" and attributes including HVAC control, Data Center 1, if room temperature is low, activate heat, and if room temperature is high, activate air conditioning (AC). An input condition of the "adjust temperature" task might be that the room temperature is greater than 1° C. different from the room's target temperature. An output condition of the "adjust temperature" task might be that the room temperature equals the target temperature. Actors of the task might include one heating unit, and one AC unit.
Other conditions of the task might be that a room temperature sensor is needed, the task is reversible, and that the building maintenance team is responsible for the task.
Further, paragraph [0027] recites, in part:
An embodiment uses the expanded set of keywords to generate a new task. In one embodiment, the new task is a variation of an existing task, such as an addition, removal, or substitution of a keyword in a task attribute, input or output condition, actor, or other portion of data describing a task. For example, an embodiment might generate a variation of an "adjust temperature" task with a task name of "adjust workload" and attributes including if room temperature is high, reduce server workload (e.g., by moving some workload to another data
center), and the same input conditions as the original "adjust temperature"
task. Presently available task extraction tools such as Zeebe include an ability to
generate variations of an existing task using additional keywords.
(Emphasis Added). Further, paragraph [0031] recites, in part:
The manner of digital twin modelling using task keyword analysis described herein is unavailable in the presently available methods in the technological field of endeavor pertaining to digital twin modelling. A method of an embodiment described herein, when implemented to execute on a device or data processing system, comprises substantial advancement of the functionality of that device or data processing system in extracting a set of tasks from workflow data, extracting a set of keywords from a task, expanding the set of keywords to include a new keyword with a semantic relationship to a keyword in the set of keywords, using the expanded set of keywords to generate a new task, and adjusting, based on a
result of execution of the new task, a model.
(Emphasis Added). Further, paragraph [0086] recites, in part:
As depicted, data collection module 210 receives data 320 of workflow 310, an entity or system to be modelled. Data collection module 210 generates workflow data 330. Workflow 310 is workflow of an example data center being modelled.
Workflow 310 includes "submit initial workload" and "generate more workload"
tasks, generated by a client of the data center. Workflow 310 also includes a "perform workload" task, in which servers of the data center perform workload submitted by a client, and a "risk analysis" task in which risks to the servers are evaluated. Workflow 310 also includes two tasks of the building's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system: "collect metrics"
(e.g., of the temperature of a server room) and "adjust temperature". In addition, workflow 310 includes a "review dashboard" task performed by a human
responsible for monitoring the data center being modelled...
((Office Action, page 10). Applicant respectfully traverses Examiner's allegations for at least the following reasons. Applicant agrees that Olsher does not teach or disclose virtualizing a physical system. Further, nowhere in paragraphs [0419] or [0809] of Brebner, or anywhere else in the prior art of record, is there any mention of virtualization of a data center such that the virtual model comprises multiple digital twins corresponding to respective physical systems of the data center Although Brebner generally discusses digital twin enabled applications, the prior art fails to disclose virtualizing a data center, such that the virtual model comprises distinct digital twin models for a server system and an HVAC system.”
This applies to independent claims 7 and 15 as these claims includes the same feature of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 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 12/22/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 8-20 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, the generating the new task causing the virtual model to execute the new task;
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 causing executing the new task in the first physical system or the second physical system.
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 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 Ex Parte Desjardins, the instant claims are not similar to Ex Parte Desjardins, 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.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 11 and 13-16 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 steps of:
“Consequently, developing and maintaining such models is too complex for humans to perform, especially in real time, and requires an automated implementation. In addition, the entity being modelled may not be well documented, or the documentation may not be reliable. Thus, the illustrative embodiments recognize that there is a need to perform digital twin modelling in an automated fashion, by analyzing data of the entity being modelled.”
and arguments at pg. 18 seems to describe a “particular way” of managing task data. “ The Applicant is basically relying on the system elements of modeling as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, regarding “there is a need to perform digital twin modelling in an automated fashion, by analyzing data of the entity being modelled” argument the Examiner wants to point out that claims do not show or break down how this is actually executed, at this point it’s just an aspirational statement
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.
Then, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) :
“Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles." In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a "‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id. However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).”
As the claims are being directed as intended result, as the amended claims have been written to be intended use, for example. :
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, the generating the new task causing the virtual model to execute the new task;
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 causing executing the new task in the first physical system or the second physical system.
Additionally, the claims are clear steps for selecting and managing task data and not the improvement of the sensors, computer program product, computer readable storage medium, computer readable storage device, processor, server, computer readable storage media.
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)
At pg. 11-15 Applicant argues that claims are analogous to Example 42,
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of Example 42 as a whole, integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Examiner finds there are no comparable improvements here and Applicants pending claims recite additional elements at a high-level of generality such that they to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea.
The present inventions managing task data without reciting any improvement to the technology, computer-related technology or technological field. Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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).
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