DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on July 3, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 21 and 24 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 14-20, 22-23 and 25 have been canceled, and claims 27-38 have been added.
Currently claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 21, 24 and 26-38 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 21 are independent.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on July 3, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 21 and 24 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 21, 24 and 26-38 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 3, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the even assuming arguendo that claim 1 recites a judicial exception under Step 2A…claim 1 nevertheless integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 PEG.
In response to applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory”, “an API” and the term “dynamically” for performing the steps. The Specification discloses these elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulation, and transmitting information over a network. For example, the Specification describes “the disclosure are capable of implementation with numerous other general-purpose or special-purpose computing system environments, configurations, or devices. Example of well-known computing system environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with aspects of the disclosure include, but are not limited to, smart phones, mobile tables, mobile computer nodes, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, gaming consoles, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, mobile telephones, mobile computing and/or communications devices in wearable or accessory form factors (e.g., watches, glasses, head-sets, or earphones), network PCs, minicomputers, main-frame computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above system or devices, virtual reality device, holographic device, and the like.” See PGP ¶ 43. The Specification fails to define and provide any technical implementation details of the abstract idea making improvement to a computer itself or another technology or technical field, but merely using the additional elements as tools to perform generic computer functions including storing instructions, reading data from multiple sources, communicating with different data elements. For example, “Memory 612 may be used to store and access instruction…Processor(s) 614 may include any quality of processing units that read data from various entities, such as memory 612.” See ¶ 39-40; and “Application programming interfaces (APIs) are provided to interact with data quality elements such as data entity, date rules, data rule set, metrics, APIs and others” see ¶ 16. None of these additional elements reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology, or provides meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea in a particular environment. Thus, using the generic computer components to implement an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (explaining that courts have identified merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as an example of when a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application); see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
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, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 21, 24 and 26-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1, 3, 5 and 35-38 are directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine; Claims 8, 11, 13 and 31-34 are directed to a method for data quality assessment without tied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories; and Claims 21, 24 and 26-30 are directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
With respect to claims 8, 11, 13 and 31-34, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method comprising a set of software modules without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method claims as representative, claim 8 recites the limitations of “importing data from a data lake, generating rules and rules sets for the imported data using dimensions and weights, generating data quality score for the imported data using the rule sets, aggregating a first set of the data quality score for a first hierarchical data entity unit, aggregating a second set of the data quality scores for a second hierarchical data entity unit, calculating a second tier aggregated data quality score by aggregating the first tier aggregate data quality score for the first hierarchical data entity unit and the first tier aggregate data quality score for the second hierarchical data entity unit into a second tier aggregate data quality score, validating the imported data, displaying the second tier aggregated data quality score, executing an ongoing score rollup strategy to dynamically update the second tier aggregated data quality score by rolling up the first tier aggregate data quality score for the first hierarchical data entity unit, and updating the dashboard display to display the updated second tier aggregate data quality score…”, and dependent claims 11, 13 and 31-34 further recite the similar limitations of “receiving a user input defining a customization parameter, and customizing the dashboard display”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only information processing and data manipulation. The limitations, as drafted, are concepts of fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions including inventory management and retail sales activities, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “by a data importer”, “a data lake”, “by a rules manager”, “by a scoring engine”, “by a hierarchical scoring aggregator”, “by a persistence component”, “by a reporting component”, and “by a data intake node (e.g., an inventory management system, a retail sales terminal, and a website portal)” do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, claims recite a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claims 8, 11, 13 and 31-34 recite the additional elements of “by a data importer”, “a data lake”, “by a rules manager”, “by a scoring engine”, “by a hierarchical scoring aggregator”, “by a persistence component”, “by a reporting component”, and “by a data intake node (e.g., an inventory management system, a retail sales terminal, and a website portal)”, “an API”, and the term “dynamically” for performing the steps. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, “A disclosed data quality assessment and monitoring tool addresses inconsistency in large data sets from differing sources, determining data quality attributes such as completeness, conformity, validity, and accuracy…An exemplary tool comprising a data importer for data from a data take; a rules manager for generating rules and rule sets; a scoring engine for generating data quality scores; a hierarchical scoring aggregator for aggregating sets of data quality scores into a plurality of first tier aggregate data quality scores and to further aggregate the first tier aggregate data quality scores into one or more second tier aggregate data quality scores; and a reporting component” (see ¶ 2); and “Application programming interfaces (APIs) are provided to interact with data quality elements such as data entity, date rules, data rule set, metrics, APIs and others” see ¶ 16. These additional elements are no more than software components, which are parts of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements, whether considered individually and as an order combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because nothing in the claim elements reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis proceed to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claims 8, 11, 13 and 31-34 recite the additional elements of “by a data importer”, “a data lake”, “by a rules manager”, “by a scoring engine”, “by a data profiler”, “by a hierarchical scoring aggregator”, “by a persistence component”, “by a reporting component”, and “by a data intake node (e.g., an inventory management system, a retail sales terminal, and a website portal)”, “an API”, and the term “dynamically” for performing the steps. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, “A disclosed data quality assessment and monitoring tool addresses inconsistency in large data sets from differing sources, determining data quality attributes such as completeness, conformity, validity, and accuracy…An exemplary tool comprising a data importer for data from a data take; a rules manager for generating rules and rule sets; a scoring engine for generating data quality scores; a hierarchical scoring aggregator for aggregating sets of data quality scores into a plurality of first tier aggregate data quality scores and to further aggregate the first tier aggregate data quality scores into one or more second tier aggregate data quality scores; and a reporting component” (see ¶ 2); and “Application programming interfaces (APIs) are provided to interact with data quality elements such as data entity, date rules, data rule set, metrics, APIs and others” see ¶ 16. None of these elements recites technological implementation details, when given the broadest reasonable and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than software components. Thus, the additional elements, whether considered individually and as an order combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they don’t (1) reflect an improvements to the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field; (2) apply the abstract idea with a particular machine; (3) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or (4) provide some meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(a)–(c), and (e)–(h).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 8, 11, 13 and 31-34 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101. The other claims 1-7 and 21-26 parallel claims 8, 11, 13 and 31-34 —similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN G CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624