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 .
Detailed Action:
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-20 are pending.
Claims 11 and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4 have allowable subject matter.
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 103:
The present claim amendments have allowable subject matter under 35 USC 102/103. The Applicant has included subject matter from the previous dependent claim set that were indicated as allowable by the Examiner in the previous Office Action into the independent claim set. The Examiner maintains the allowability of the subject matter in the present claim set. Thus, the amendments are allowable under the statute, pending the rejection of 101.
Regarding 101:
The Applicant focuses the argument/remarks on the “…loop is visually identified…” aspect of the claim amendments. The Applicant asserts that this limitation, as included in the amendments, cannot be realistically performed by the human mind. The Examiner agrees, however, the Examiner also finds that the claim limitation is a form of organizing human behavior. To have organizing human behavior under MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) there needs to be, among other things, “…managing personal behaviors…” Here, such is the case. The Examiner finds that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, directing a user to visually identify a loop is in essence directing the behavior of an individual. Thus, the rejection is maintained, albeit altered under the rationale.
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 1-10, 12-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is -directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1, 4, 7 recite the abstract idea of a mental process, and claims 1 and 4 are also recite organizing human activity. Specifically, when taken as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of managing the workflow and process and finding loops within processes.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1, 4, 7 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Here, the claim limitations of claim 1, 4, and 7 that are directed towards a mental process are:
“…extracting a pattern of a task from log data, the pattern indicates a type of a sequence
of processes of the task, and the log data indicates an execution history of performing a
process of the processes, and the process represents a part of the task;
detecting a loop of the process according to the pattern;
specifying, according to the sequence of the processes in the pattern in which the loop
is detected, a previous process included in a predetermined range preceding a start of the
loop…”
Moreover, the claim limitations of claims 1 and 4 that are directed towards organizing human activity are:
“…interactively receiving an inquiry, wherein the inquiry includes:
first search parameter data for identifying the process of the task associated
with a problem,
second search parameter data for identifying the previous process anticipated
as a causal process of the problem,
a length of the loop,
a number of occurrences of the loop, and
the number of predetermined range proceeding the start of the loop; and
outputting information indicating the specified process, wherein the specified process
is provided such that the loop is visually identified…”
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…system…processor…memory…graphical user interface…user device…computer program product…computer readable medium…log data… “
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) and as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., "receiving, processing, storing, transmitting/notifying/displaying/presenting data"; "automating mental tasks") as well-understood, routine, conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that the dependent claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 4, and 7 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, “…system…processor…memory…graphical user interface…user device…computer program product…computer readable medium… log data…”these amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions.
In addition, paragraphs 12-14 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method (i.e., commercially available processors).
Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. These limitations, similar to the limitation elements of the independent claims above, generic computing elements performing generic computing functions.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claims 1, 4, 7.
Conclusion:
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, R can be reached on 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623