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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 14-15 and 17-24 are pending in the instant patent application. Claim 14 is amended. Claims 16 and 34 are cancelled. Claims 25-33 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections. The claim amendments now recite previously allowable subject matter; thus the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims are not directed towards abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the claims as presented recite abstract ideas. Examiner will also note that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). In addition, the limitations of “wherein the value is determined by a machine learning model trained using sets of enterprise data from the centralized data warehouse and known values for each set” and “adjusting the machine learning model according to a loss function, the loss function receiving, as input, the value for the metric from the machine learning model and the override value from the user” will be address in Prong 2. Applicant asserts that Example 39 is similar, however the key distinction is Examples 39 was found eligible due to the training limitation not falling into any grouping of abstract ideas because it is not practical for a human mind to train a neural network. The claim language provided does not go into any type of training but rather teaches limitations that can be performed in the mind, with pen/paper and the use of generic computing devices performing generic functions.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted, the limitations are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and further uses a computer (ex: machine learning) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because at the least are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (such as mere data gathering) and adding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The machine learning aspects used in the claim language are used in their generic capacity performing generic functions as intended.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2B, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner analyzed the claim as directed by MPEP in regards to Step 2B. Furthermore, the claims do not recite any limitations that convey in at least, significantly more or improvements to the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field.
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.
Regarding Claims 14-15 and 17-24, they are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, however the claims are rejected for they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 14-15 and 17-24 are directed to the abstract idea of analyzing enterprise data.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 14, claim 14 recites receiving, first enterprise data; receiving, second enterprise data; processing the first and second enterprise data for storage, wherein processing comprises aligning a format of the first enterprise data and second enterprise data with a format of the centralized data warehouse; in response to receipt of a query identifying a metric associated with a policy, determining a value for the metric based on the processed data in the centralized data warehouse; continuously receiving, updated enterprise data; and in real-time and in response to the updated enterprise data, updating the determine value; receiving an override value from a user in response to a suggestive corrective action.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 15, 18, 20-24 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a processor, a computer system, at least one database, at least one application, wherein the value is determined by a machine learning model trained using sets of enterprise data from the centralized data warehouse and known values for each set, adjusting the machine learning model according to a loss function, the loss function receiving, as input, the value for the metric from the machine learning model and the override value from the user, and a centralized data warehouse. The processor, a computer system, at least one database, at least one application, wherein the value is determined by a machine learning model trained using sets of enterprise data from the centralized data warehouse and known values for each set, adjusting the machine learning model according to a loss function, the loss function receiving, as input, the value for the metric from the machine learning model and the override value from the user, and a centralized data warehouse are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, Claim 14 recites a plurality of instances of receiving data, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Dependent Claims 15, 17 and 19 are merely using the machine learning model as a tool to carry out the abstract idea.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 14, 17 and 19 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a processor, a computer system, at least one database, at least one application, wherein the value is determined by a machine learning model trained using sets of enterprise data from the centralized data warehouse and known values for each set, adjusting the machine learning model according to a loss function, the loss function receiving, as input, the value for the metric from the machine learning model and the override value from the user, a centralized data warehouse and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0012-0019, 0047-0052. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 14 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)…in at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network))).
Therefore, Claims 14, 17 and 19 alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
