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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the remark applicant argued: “Applicant respectfully submits that in the instant application, the features recited in each of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 require the use of a machine learning model for which training is updated based the result of the claimed method, and as such, the claims recite improvements in training the machine learning model itself. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that as amended herein, when considered as a whole, each of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 integrates an abstract idea into a practical application.” The examiner disagrees. Applicant in this amendment simply includes limitations from claims 6, 12, and 18 into independent claims. The claims were previously rejected per management’s direction because “analyzing”, “recommending”, and “identifying” are performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. “executing” is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 1-5, 7-11, and13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being unpatentable. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Claim 1 recites "identifying an output file..."; "scanning the at least one rule...". These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "a communication interface", "at least one processor", "at least one rule database", or "a trained model", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements "receiving at least one text file…”, this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); and "generating an output file… "; this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); “generating …”; this limitation can be considered post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d) “generating at least one updated output file…”; this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); "applying at least one rule..." amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); "recommending at least one change..." amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "receiving..."; "generating..." are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc.... The limitations "applying..." and "recommending..." are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claim 2, “spark code” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, MPEP 2106.05(d). See Background, Spec.
As per claim 3, “a plurality of rules defined for a plurality of operators” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, MPEP 2106.05(d). See Class note, Oklahoma State University, 2020.
As per claim 4, “recommending” covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
As per claim 5, “storing” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 5.
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 CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (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 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198