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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 30, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2 and 15 have been canceled. Now, claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 are pending.
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, 3-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 are directed to creating data products, functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper. Functions “performable in the mind or with pen and paper” fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (mental processes). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
5. Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1 and 3-13 are drawn to a method (process), claims 14 and 16-19 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (an apparatus), and claim 20 is drawn to a system (machine) which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 20, recites in part, a method, a computer-readable medium, and a system comprising the following steps:
Receiving, by an insight service and from an organization user, a data query comprising at least one data topic wherein:
the insight service are operably connected to each other, and
the insight service is executing that provides second services of the organization user;
obtaining a metadata graph representative of an asset catalog, wherein the asset catalog is a data structure configured to maintain asset metadata and describe a collection of assets known to the insight service, wherein the assets refer to structured and unstructured items of information, and wherein the metadata graph comprises at least a set of node subsets and a set of nodes wherein:
the set of nodes comprises a first node set, a second node set, and a third node set,
the first node set corresponds to a group of documents,
the second node set corresponds to a group of authors,
the third node set corresponds to a group of topics, and
the set of nodes are representative of asset catalog entries;
filtering, based on the at least one data topic, the metadata graph to identify at least one node subset of the set of node subsets;
generating a k-partite metadata graph using the at least one node subset; and
creating a data product based on the k-partite metadata graph, wherein creating the data product based on the k-partite metadata graph, comprises:
identifying a super node in the k-partite metadata graph, wherein the super node comprises a node that serves as an endpoint to a number of edges, wherein the number of edges exceeds a threshold number of edges;
extracting first asset metadata from a first asset catalog entry of the asset catalog, wherein the first asset metadata describes a first asset and the first asset catalog entry corresponds to the super node;
determining a first asset availability for the first asset;
producing availability remarks comprising the first asset availability; and
creating the data product comprising a manifest of assets and the availability remarks, wherein the manifest of assets lists the first asset..
These steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information (i.e. receiving data, obtaining a graph, filtering a graph, generating a graph, and creating a product) in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment).
These steps could also amount to methods of organizing human activity, (i.e. receiving a data query from an organization user; obtaining a metadata graph representative of an asset catalog; filtering, based on the at least one data topic, the metadata graph to identify at least one node subset; generating a k-partite metadata graph using the at least one node subset; and creating a data product based on the k-partite metadata graph, identifying anode, extracting data, determining an available asset, producing availability remarks, creating the data product), which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite additional elements:
a client device, wired and wireless connections, a first computing device (CD), and a first integrated circuitry (IC), a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM), a computer processor.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“a client device”, “wired and wireless connections”, “a first computing device (CD)”, “a first integrated circuitry (IC)”, “a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM)”, “a computer processor”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, executing, obtaining, filtering, generating, creating, identifying, extracting, determining, producing, and creating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 60 and 672-674 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 14 and 20 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims 3-13 and 16-19 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
For example, dependent claims 3, 5-8, 17 and 18, recite in part, further identifying and defining a node, which amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper (mental process) and managing relationships or transactions between people (certain methods of organizing human activity). Dependent claims3-13 and 16-19 merely serve to embellish the abstract idea and/or append additional extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. After determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.04{d) - Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application). The court has provided limitations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application and limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.04(d)(I) — Relevant Considerations for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements integrate a Judicial Exception into a Practical Application). The use of a client device, wired and wireless connections, a first computing device (CD), and a first integrated circuitry (IC), a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM), and a computer processor are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”). Here the instant claims seem more analogous to "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea, (i.e. groupings/classifications of data), on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
In regards to Enfish, the claims assert improvements in computer capabilities with sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. The present claims recites generic computer elements used as tools to perform an existing business process and does not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology. Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem —creating a data product— rather than a technological one. These claims are akin to data manipulation. As stated above, Examiner finds, Applicants have not identified anything in the claimed invention that shows or even submits the technology is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
B. Applicant further argues that the claims include significantly more than that which the examiner contends is an abstract idea.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for an alleged application of an abstract idea to be considered eligible, it must amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., pass step 2B of the Mayo test). As shown in the rejection above, the application of the abstract idea recited merely applies the idea in a generic computer environment (a client device, wired and wireless connections, a first computing device (CD), and a first integrated circuitry (IC), a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM), and a computer processor) using generic computer functions (receiving a data query from an organization user; obtaining a metadata graph representative of an asset catalog; filtering, based on the at least one data topic, the metadata graph to identify at least one node subset; generating a k-partite metadata graph using the at least one node subset; and creating a data product based on the k-partite metadata graph, identifying anode, extracting data, determining an available asset, producing availability remarks, creating the data product). Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EVALUATING IMPACT OF PROCESS AUTOMATION ON KPIs (US 20200019822 A1) teaches an AI-based process monitoring system access a plurality of data sources having different data formats to collect and analyze KPI data and shortlist KPIs that are to be used for determining the impact of automation of an automated process or sub-process. Information regarding an automated process is received and KPIs associated with the process and sub-processes of the process are identified. The identified KPIs are put through an approval process and the approved KPIs are presented to a user for selection. The user-selected KPIs are evaluated based on classification, ranking and sentiments associated therewith. The evaluations are again presented to the user along with a set of questionnaires wherein each of the questions has a dynamically controlled weight associated therewith. Based at least on the weights and user responses, a subset of the evaluated KPIs are shortlisted for use in evaluating the impact of process automation..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber A. Misiaszek whose telephone number is (571) 270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4, every other Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) computer-accessible medium. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR computer-accessible medium, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR computer-accessible medium, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information computer-accessible medium, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682