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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 13-14 are newly added by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Specification Objection
As per [0036] of the instant specification, in ll. 5 “Ture” should be “True”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A computer system comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
divide a transaction across a plurality of services into a plurality of local transactions (abstract idea mental process);
confirm execution states of the plurality of local transactions when the failure of the transaction is detected (abstract idea mental process),
select the program to be applied based on the service management information, the program management information, and the execution states of the plurality of local transactions (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. 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:
at least one computer including a processor (generic computing components), a storage device (generic computing components) connected to the processor, and a network interface (generic computing components) connected to the processor, wherein
the computer system (generic computing components) is connected to at least one first computer (generic computing components) that is configured to execute a service (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) and at least one second computer (generic computing components) that is configured to execute the plurality of local transactions (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea),
the computer system is configured to hold service management information for managing a specification of the local transaction in the service and program management information for storing a program executed to correct data inconsistency caused by a failure of the transaction and data associated with an application condition (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information), and
the at least one computer is configured to based on detecting data inconsistency due to failure of at least one local transaction of the plurality of local transactions, execute data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the selected program to perform at least one action to improve data consistency (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
at least one computer including a processor, a storage device connected to the processor, and a network interface connected to the processor, wherein
the computer system is connected to at least one first computer that is configured to execute a service (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) and at least one second computer that is configured to execute the plurality of local transactions (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea),
the computer system is configured to hold service management information for managing a specification of the local transaction in the service and program management information for storing a program executed to correct data inconsistency caused by a failure of the transaction and data associated with an application condition (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information), and
the at least one computer is configured to based on detecting data inconsistency due to failure of at least one local transaction of the plurality of local transactions, execute data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the selected program to perform at least one action to improve data consistency (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 2. The computer system according to claim 1, wherein the data stored in the program management information includes a priority order (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information), the at least one computer is configured to
select the data according to the priority order (abstract idea mental process), and
determine, based on the service management information, the application condition included in the selected data, and the execution states of the plurality of local transactions, whether the data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the program corresponding to the selected data can be executed (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 3. The computer system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one computer is configured to
execute improvement processing for implementing improvement for satisfying the application condition when it is determined that the data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the program corresponding to the selected data cannot be applied since the application condition is not satisfied (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea), and
determine whether the data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the program corresponding to the selected data can be executed after the improvement processing is executed (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The computer system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one computer is configured to provide an interface for setting the program, the application condition, and the priority order (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 5. The computer system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one computer is configured to newly select a program (abstract idea mental process) and execute data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the newly selected program when the failure of the transaction is detected after the data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the program corresponding to the selected data is executed (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 6. The computer system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one computer is configured to provide an interface for setting the specification of the local transaction in the service (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
As per claim 7, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 13. The data consistency maintenance method according to claim 7, wherein performing the at least one action to improve data consistency further comprises at least one of:
re-executing the at least one failed local transaction (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea),
executing a compensation transaction for canceling an operation based on the at least one failed local transaction, or
rolling back a database corresponding to the at least one failed local transaction.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 13 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the applicable rejection(s) and objection(s) set forth in this Office action because the examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art.
The primary reason for allowance for independent claims 1 and 7 is the computer system is configured to hold service management information for managing a specification of the local transaction in the service and program management information for storing a program executed to correct data inconsistency caused by a failure of the transaction and data associated with an application condition, and the at least one computer is configured to confirm execution states of the plurality of local transactions when the failure of the transaction is detected, select the program to be applied based on the service management information, the program management information, and the execution states of the plurality of local transactions, and based on detecting data inconsistency due to failure of at least one local transaction of the plurality of local transactions, execute data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the selected program to perform at least one action to improve data consistency in conjunction with the rest of the limitations set forth in the claim.
Response to Amendment
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment filed on 01/28/2026 introduces new matter into the claims. The added material to the claims which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “based on detecting data inconsistency due to failure of at least one local transaction of the plurality of local transactions, execute data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the selected program to perform at least one action to improve data consistency” in independent claims 1 and 7, and the entirety of claims 13-14.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the instant disclosure only recites “improvement program”, “improvement for satisfying an application condition of the data consistency maintenance program”, “improve the application condition”, and “Possibility of execution of the data consistency maintenance program can be improved by executing the improvement program” (see US PG PUB (US 2023/0325248) of the instant specification in [0059]-[0060], [0082]-[0084], and [0094]). Nowhere do any of the aforementioned passages state any language that can support the most recent amendment “based on detecting data inconsistency due to failure of at least one local transaction of the plurality of local transactions, execute data consistency maintenance processing implemented by the selected program to perform at least one action to improve data consistency”. Although the instant disclosure recites the word “improvement/improve/improved”, none of those recitations are in reference to improving data consistency nor is there any explanation as to how the data consistency is actually improved. Moreover, there is no discussion about how any supposed improvement to data consistency actually improves the functioning of the computer itself. The independent claims as most recently amended simply recite “to improve data consistency” which merely amounts to reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The “to improve data consistency” language appears to be just simply added to/tacked onto the end of the claim as an afterthought and a conclusory statement with the mere intention that at some indeterminate point in the future the data consistency is somehow described as being improved without providing any details of how any supposed improvement is actually realized by the computer itself. Finally, Applicant has not clearly explained what is meant by “improve data consistency”. In other words, to what is the data consistent with and how is data consistency determined?
Regarding claims 13-14, the recited re-executing step is not clearly tied to improving the data inconsistency. In other words, it is not clear as to how performing the re-executing step actually results in any supposed improved data consistency and resulting improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. [0071], [0084], and [0095] of the US PG PUB do not link the re-executing step with improving data consistency. The recited executing a compensation transaction for cancelling an operation is only mentioned in [0053] of the US PG PUB, but [0053] does not provide any details as to how canceling an operation results in any supposed data consistency improvement and resulting improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Finally, the recited rollback limitation is recited in [0074], but as before it also fails to provide any details as to how rolling back a database provides any supposed improvement to data consistency and resulting improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 14, Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong One, the instant claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computing system. The examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant is in error and incorrectly turns to the “improvement” rationale under Step 2A, Prong One. Hence, Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is directed to the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is the improvement is not persuasive. An “improved” abstract idea is still an abstract idea nonetheless and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully submits that an improvement in computer functionality is a reason for supporting the significance of the additional elements in a claim (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, and not Step 1 or Step 2A Prong One). In other words, the “improvement” rationale is reserved for evaluating whether the additional elements and not the abstract idea itself amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05). Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea itself cannot be directed to an improvement in computer functionality (Step 2A Prong One). Rather only the additional elements can qualify as significantly more (i.e., the improvement) than the abstract idea itself (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims are not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because no capability of the computer is being improved in any way. The examiner respectfully reiterates that a realizing an improvement in computer functionality are reasons for supporting the significance of additional elements in a claim. In other words the “improvement” rationale is reserved for evaluating whether additional elements and not the abstract idea itself amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05). Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea itself cannot be directed to an improvement in computer functionality. Rather only the additional elements can qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is very narrow and specific is not persuasive. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and the claim itself must reflect the improvement in technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. An important consideration in determining whether a claim is directed to an improvement in technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. A claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology (see RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. The examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that the additional elements and not the abstract idea itself must demonstrate that the claims as a whole clearly do not seek to tie up the abstract idea. Applicant has failed to identify what is being considered the additional elements. Applicant is encouraged to review MPEP 2106.05 which outlines the different reasons that could support the significance of additional elements (e.g. whether or not a claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself) and is reminded that simply meeting one of the reasons does not automatically make the claim patent eligible. Instead one must consider the disclosure as a whole as well as the other reasons that would not support the significance of the additional elements. Finally, Applicant is reminded to consider the difference between the abstract idea itself versus the additional elements in a claim. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 14-18 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claimed steps of detecting, selecting, and executing could not be practically performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A human can indeed mentally confirm execution states of the plurality of local transactions when the failure of the transaction is detected. For example, in the US PG PUB (US 2023/0325248) of the instant specification, [0072] states that a notification of a failure of the execution flow of the local transaction can occur to detect the stop of the execution flow of the local transaction. [0080] states that an execution result “failure” is searched. [0063] states that a user interacts with a screen for searching a service and for displaying the service management information. Therefore, the instant disclosure supports an interpretation of a human user being able to mentally confirm execution states of the plurality (e.g., two) of local transactions when the failure of the transaction is detected based on viewing a notification on a display indicating the failure for human detection, or the human simply observing/noticing that the transaction failed (i.e., [0012] “interruption time of communication” and [0097] “the local transaction fails and the execution flow is stopped again”). In other words, a human can detect an interruption in communication for a period of time and notice that an execution flow is stopped multiple times. Selecting the program to be applied based on the service management information, the program management information, and the execution states of the plurality of local transactions can also be performed mentally by a human. In fact, [0065] the instant US PG PUB explicitly states “when the user selects a program”. Therefore, Applicant’s own specification supports an interpretation of a human user performing the selection step of the program. Finally, the executing step is not being interpreted by the examiner as an abstract idea limitation. Rather, it is being interpreted as extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that a human cannot mentally perform the executing step does not apply. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 18-19, Applicant argues that the instant claims are clearly directed to an improvement in the function of a computer system. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded of In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”). It appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims eligible without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims makes the claims eligible in view of the rejections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such rejections. It is not readily apparent how improving data consistency results in improving the functioning of the computer itself. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 19-22 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claims include an inventive concept. The examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant is reminded that the lack of prior art (i.e. novelty) does not avoid the problem of abstractness. While § 101 subject matter eligibility is a threshold test that typically precedes the novelty or obviousness inquiry (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602 (2010)), it is a requirement separate from those other patentability inquiries (see Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 123 USPQ2d 1813, 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Mayo Collaborative Servs v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012)). It is important to recognize that the 35 U.S.C. 101 inquiry and other patentability inquiries might sometimes overlap. However, shifting the 35 U.S.C. 101 patent-eligibility inquiry entirely to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 sections risks creating significantly greater legal uncertainty, and assumes that those sections can do work that they are not equipped to do. While material may be relevant to a novelty and obviousness analysis it may be the case where the material is not relevant to a determination of eligible subject matter. Eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries (see Affinity Labs of Tex., v. DirecTV, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 Fed. Cir. 2016 and Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming that a particular claimed feature was novel does not avoid the problem of abstractness. The search for an inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. 101 is thus distinct from demonstrating 35 U.S.C. 102 novelty. The novelty and nonobviousness of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 does not bear on whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107478, [WL] and *4). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). A prior art search should not be necessary to resolve the inquiry as to whether an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even "just discovered" judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that "without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2116, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 ("Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry."). Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In summary, it is readily apparent and clearly evident that Applicant has a deficient, erroneous, and improper understanding of the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea subject matter eligibility examination process. Throughout the Remarks Applicant conflates the individual steps involved in the process (i.e., Step 1, Step 2A Prong One, Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B) while also providing unpersuasive arguments that are clearly refuted by various portions of the MPEP. Applicant fails to interact with or address any of the examiner’s limitation-by-limitation analysis of the claims provided in the rejection above, and instead provides mere conclusory statements. The examiner highly encourages Applicant to review MPEP 2106 prior to submitting any subsequent response.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Taggar et al. (US 2020/0394178) in at least [0080] disclose an error detector that implements a remediator to eliminate data inconsistencies.
Namboodiri et al. (US 2020/0294633) in at least [0048] disclose resolving detected inconsistencies in data.
Kitamura et al. (US 2017/0262340) in at least [0013] and [0025] disclose detecting inconsistent state of backup data and eliminating the inconsistent state.
Coutinho et al. (US 2017/0206238) in at least [0168] disclose detecting and correcting data inconsistency.
Zircher et al. (US 2016/0110406) in at least [0046] disclose identifying data inconsistencies and identifying corrective measure for fixing the inconsistencies.
Chen (US 2010/0281061) in at least [0173] disclose detecting and remedying data inconsistencies.
Van Hise et al. (US 2009/0164717) in at least [0021] disclose detecting data inconsistencies and implementing recommendations for corrective action.
Conclusion
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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 February 12, 2026