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 .
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the recitation of the limitation ‘one or more processors’, the claims are directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitations ‘monitoring data related to a topic for a first period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitations ‘monitoring the detected anomaly for a second period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitations ‘detecting an anomaly for data within the first period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitations ‘determining a direction of the detected anomaly over the second period of times, wherein the direction is a normalizing direction, when the detected anomaly is moving toward an expected value, and the direction is a broadening direction when the detected anomaly is moving away from the expected value; determining a depth of the determined direction of the detected anomaly; determining based on the determined direction and depth, that a trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend indicating that the anomaly is likely to broaden or continue to broaden’ are directed to mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships based on comparison of values.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘one or more processors’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘providing an alert to a computing device in response to determining the trend is the broadening trend, wherein the alert includes an indication of a variable of the detected anomaly for the topic’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations ‘wherein the depth of the determined direction of the detected anomaly is a magnitude of the direction as compared to a threshold’ are mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations ‘wherein the threshold corresponds to a value of the detected anomaly’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘wherein determining that the trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend further comprises determining that at least one of the determined direction or depth broadens the detected anomaly’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘wherein determining that the trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend further comprises determining that the determined direction is broadening and the determined depth is normalizing’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘wherein determining that the trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend further comprises determining that the determined direction is normalizing and the determined depth is broadening’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation ‘wherein determining the direction of the detected anomaly comprises comparing the detected anomaly in the first period of time to a previous value for previous data from a previous period of time’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations ‘wherein: the determined direction is the normalizing direction when the detected anomaly is moving toward the expected value as compared to the previous value, and the determined direction is the broadening direction when the detected anomaly is moving away from the expected value as compared to the previous value’ are mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations ‘further comprising comparing the depth of the determined direction to a threshold indicating whether the depth is a broadening depth or a normalizing depth’ are mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 10, with the exception of the recitation of the limitation ‘one or more processors’, the claims are directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitation ‘monitor data related to a topic for a first period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitation ‘monitor the detected anomaly for a second period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitations ‘detect an anomaly for the data within the first period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitations ‘determine a direction of the detected anomaly over the second period of times, wherein the direction is a normalizing direction, when the detected anomaly is moving toward an expected value, and the direction is broadening direction when the detected anomaly is moving away from the expected value; determine a depth of the determined direction of the detected anomaly; determine based on the determined direction and depth, that a trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend indicating that the anomaly is likely to broaden or continue to broaden’ are directed to mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships based on comparison of values.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘one or more processors’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘provide an alert to a computing device in response to determining the trend is the broadening trend, wherein the alert includes an indication of a variable of the detected anomaly for the topic’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations ‘wherein the depth of the determined direction of the detected anomaly is a magnitude of the direction as compared to a threshold’ are mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations ‘wherein the threshold corresponds to a value of the detected anomaly’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘wherein determining that the trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend further comprises determining that at least one of the determined direction or depth broadens the detected anomaly’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘wherein determining that the trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend further comprises determining that the determined direction is broadening and the determined depth is normalizing’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation ‘wherein determining that the trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend further comprises determining that the determined direction is normalizing and the determined depth is broadening’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation ‘wherein determining the direction of the detected anomaly comprises comparing the detected anomaly in the first period of time to a previous value for previous data from a previous period of time’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations ‘wherein: the determined direction is the normalizing direction when the detected anomaly is moving toward the expected value as compared to the previous value, and the determined direction is the broadening direction when the detected anomaly is moving away from the expected value as compared to the previous value’ are mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations ‘further comprising comparing the depth of the determined direction to a threshold indicating whether the depth is a broadening depth or a normalizing depth’ are mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 19, with the exception of the recitation of the limitation ‘A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors; one or more processors’, the claims are directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitation ‘monitor data related to a topic for a first period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitation ‘monitor the detected anomaly for a second period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitations ‘detect an anomaly for the data within the first period of time’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitations ‘determine a direction of the detected anomaly over the second period of time, wherein the direction is a normalizing direction, when the detected anomaly is moving toward an expected value, and the direction is broadening direction when the detected anomaly is moving away from the expected value; determine a depth of the determined direction of the detected anomaly; determine based on the determined direction and depth, that a trend for the detected anomaly is a broadening trend indicating that the anomaly is likely to broaden or continue to broaden’ are directed to mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships based on comparison of values.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors; one or more processors’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘provide an alert to a computing device in response to determining the trend is the broadening trend, wherein the alert includes an indication of a variable of the detected anomaly for the topic’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘wherein the depth of the determined direction of the detected anomaly is a magnitude of the direction as compared to a threshold’ are mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations ‘wherein the variable includes one or more of a number of searches, a number of clicks, or a number of policy violations for the topic’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion of defining the variable.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation ‘wherein the alert further includes information associated with the detected anomaly, the information including one or more of domains causing the detected anomaly, regions reporting the detected anomaly, categories driving the detected anomaly, or language and creative types of the detected anomaly’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered. The 101 rejection still stands. Concerning Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101 Rejections, providing at alert with a variable of the detection of an anomaly to a computing device is still seen as insignificant solution activity and is not seen as a particular solution to a particular problem nor improving computer technology. The variable of the detection of an anomaly is just an indication of the type of information in the alert.
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 Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113