Notice of Pre-AlA 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
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination Transmittal received on 8/27/2025. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 1-20 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.
Claim(s) 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 11 is drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), as such claims 1 and 11 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to altering data containers based on probability. Specifically, the claims recite receiving, at one or more computing devices, data associated with a data container, the data container defining one or more given events, the one or more given events associated with respective probabilities computed using a machine learning model, the probabilities representing the likelihood that the one or more given events will occur, the one or more given events comprising respective criteria to control a communication device to perform one or more respective given actions associated with the one or more given events; dynamically modifying, at the one or more computing devices, the data associated with the data container by altering one or more of: the probability, the one or more given actions, and the criteria associated with the one or more given events, based on updated contextual data comprising at least one of: time information, a location of the communication device, and activity detected by the device; when the probability meets a given threshold condition, processing the criteria of the given event and controlling, via the one or more computing devices, the communication device to perform the given action associated with the given event upon satisfaction of the criteria; when the probability does not meet the given threshold condition, controlling, via the one or more computing devices, the communication device to one or more of: decline to perform the given action; inquire as to whether the given event occurred; and perform a further given action defined within the data container, which is grouped within the Mathematical Concepts and is similar to the concept of (mathematical relationships OR mathematical formulas or equations OR mathematical calculations) OR Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as device, communication device, processing device, storage merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the device, communication device, processing device , storage perform(s) the steps or functions of receiving, at one or more computing devices, data associated with a data container, the data container defining one or more given events, the one or more given events associated with respective probabilities of the likelihood that the one or more given events will occur, the one or more given events comprising respective criteria to control a communication device to perform one or more respective given actions associated with the one or more given events. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims 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 exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a device, communication device, processing device , storage to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of altering data containers based on probability. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the device, communication device, processing device , storage perform(s) the steps or functions of receiving, at one or more computing devices, data associated with a data container, the data container defining one or more given events, the one or more given events associated with respective probabilities of the likelihood that the one or more given events will occur, the one or more given events comprising respective criteria to control a communication device to perform one or more respective given actions associated with the one or more given events. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of altering data containers based on probability Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, and 18- 20 further describe the abstract idea of altering data containers based on probability The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s citation of McRO, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant’s argument citing McRO case does not apply here. In McRO, the patent was allowed because it described specific rules that controlled how the computer processed information to create a unique result that actually improved animation technology. The claims in this application are different. They simply describe receiving data, using an unspecified machine-learning program to calculate probabilities, comparing those probabilities to a threshold, and then having a standard communication device send notifications or requests based on basic factors like time, location or activity. These claims do not specify any particular rules, model design, data processing methods, or advance technology. Instead, they just describe using mathematical calculations and basic logical thinking on regular computers to achieve a desired outcome. This is similar to the rejected claims in case like Electric Power Group, SAP V. InvestPic,. Therefore, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application under 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis. The additional elements in the claims are well-known, routine, and conventional under Step 2B.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443