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
This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 09 April 2026. Claims 1, 12, 17 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending. Examiner withdraws the rejections of claims 1-17 and 19-21 under 35 USC § 102. However, the rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-21 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter is maintained. The rejections are as stated below.
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 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for managing instructions by switching memory tables from a first table to a second.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of switching a page table from a first table to a second table in response to an instruction sending request for sending a sensitive instruction; obtaining a code according to the second table, the code being a code related to sending the sensitive instruction; and executing the code.
The claimed system simply describes series of steps for managing instructions by switching memory tables from a first table to a second. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performances and concepts performed in the human minds (including observation; evaluation; judgment; opinion); and a method of organizing human activity which includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) that enhance managing instructions between memory tables , fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity category of the USPTO’s Guidance. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. Observations and evaluation occur when the system periodically switches memory tables, obtains and executes the instructions. mitigating risk occurs because the system prevents hacker attempts and manages personal behavior (including following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, fundamental economic principles or practices, and/or managing personal behavior or abstract ideas, then it falls within the “mental processes” and “a method of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitation of a multiprocessor system, the multiprocessor system comprising a first processor and a second processor, an extended page table (EPT), a first EPT, a second EPT, and making the first processor under the control of a virtual machine, send a sensitive instruction to the second processor to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Merely adding generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application). Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1, 19 (specification, ¶ 0194 excludes transitory media) and 20. Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-17 and 21 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
Dependent claims 2-17 and 21 include the additional elements of a springboard code, a GPA, HPA, GVA, EPTP switch and IPI instructions. As discussed above with respect to the independent claims The additional elements in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic elements performing generic computer function of processing data. The limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
The remaining dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Dependent claims, recite additional limitations and steps. However, as mentioned above with respect to the independent claims, the claimed limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a device, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic device to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection are deemed persuasive and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the above-mentioned steps. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections. The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution, but rather use the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims here do not recite an improvement in computers. The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, or solve any technological problem. Rather, the claim simply “includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” and “does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claim uses generic computer components and generic computer. The claims merely use instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem/internet-centric problem. Limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to an improvement computer-related technology beyond the expected benefits of using page table mechanisms for access control. Mere assertions of “system security” are insufficient without claim limitations that reflect a non-conventional technical solution.. As found by the courts “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . ..” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Content Extraction, 2013 WL 3964909, at *12 (“the mere use of a computer to more quickly and efficiently . . . accomplish a given task does not create meaningful limitation on an otherwise abstract and wide-ranging concept”).
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application, in the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. Improving security or preventing misuse is a common business/security goal and does not, by itself constitutes a practical application or technological improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a), a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions (the claim uses standard EPT switching for islolation). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights