DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
4/27/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 1 because they recite a concrete sequence of computer operations that restructures a dependency graph into a grouped directed acyclic graph, binds benchmark models back to the appropriate grouped nodes before execution, and then controls execution order based on whether prerequisite recalibration output has become available and usable. That is a particular machine-implemented orchestration technique for managing dependency-constrained recalibration workloads. It is not a mere observation, judgment, or generic data analysis. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s Specification at [0056] and [0066]-[0080] broadly permit general purpose computers, servers, clouds, arbitrary networks, programming languages, and protocols. These paragraphs confirm a generic technological environment rather than a particular machine or unconventional architecture. The invention does not address a computer specific problem or a compute resource problem. The independent claims do not claim any concurrent processing across many compute resources. The problem addressed is the complexity arising from dependencies among mathematical models and calibration objects, which falls under the stated abstract ideas in the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that the claims improve the way a computer system schedules and executes recalibration workloads under complex dependency conditions, asserting a technological improvement at Step 2A, Prong 2.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims and specification do not provide technical detail as to how a computer functions differently to amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The cited specification paragraphs merely describe the use of physical or virtual computing resources to generally carry out the claimed steps, amounting to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues on p. 10 that the claims recite significantly more at Step 2B because the ordered combination of minimum-group partitioning of the directed graph, reassociation of benchmarks and corresponding models with their primary calibrating object before recalibration, concurrent execution of first level groups having no outside dependencies, and deferred assignment of second-level groups until prerequisite output is received and usable is a specific execution framework, not a generic instruction to use a computer as a tool.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ordered combination analyzes dependency information, expresses the relationships as graphs, groups mutually dependent items, determines an execution order, and utilizes computing resources to implement the abstract idea. The particular details of the abstract idea cannot supply the inventive concept. Further, applying the abstract idea to a computing environment or implementing the abstract idea on computing resources does not supply an inventive concept.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive to overcome the rejection. In particular see applicant’s amendments and remarks on p. 10-13.
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 clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium). 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 integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-7 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 8-14 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”). Claims 15-20 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting determining a number of dependencies on corresponding calibrating objects for each of a plurality of benchmarks; generating a directed graph, wherein the directed graph is based on the plurality of benchmarks, the number of dependencies, and the corresponding calibrating objects; generating a directed acyclic graph from the directed graph, wherein groups of calibrating objects are nodes of the directed acyclic graph, and wherein generating the directed acyclic graph comprises partitioning all nodes of the directed graph into a minimum number of groups that have no interdependencies such that all interdependencies are self-contained inside of a single group and dependencies between groups are one-way dependencies; reassociating benchmarks and corresponding models with the relevant groups, wherein the benchmarks and corresponding models are reassociated with their primary calibrating object in advance of a recalibration process; assigning first-level groups of calibrating objects to compute resources, wherein the first-level groups of calibrating objects have no outside dependencies; recalibrating, …, the first-level groups of calibrating objects; and assigning second-level groups of calibrating objects to the compute resources after the first-level groups of calibrating objects on which the second-level groups of calibrating objects have the outside dependency have finished their respective recalibration processes and the output is received and usable by the second-level groups of calibrating objects, wherein each of the second-level groups of calibrating objects has an outside dependency on a one of the calibrating objects in one of the first-level groups of calibrating objects (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships; and mental processes like concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite steps for determining dependencies, creating a directed graph and organizing nodes by dependency, and recalibrating calibrating objects, which are mathematical concepts and include steps also reciting mental processes. It is understood that the claimed steps aim to provide a method for managing dependencies among benchmarks and calibrating objects for organizations that utilize thousands of interrelated calibrating objects (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of mathematical relationships; and mental processes common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a “system and method” for managing benchmark and object dependencies).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as at least one computer including a processor; compute resources) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “determining” a number of dependencies, “generating” a directed graph, “generating” a directed acyclic graph, “reassociating” benchmarks, “assigning” first-level groups, “recalibrating” the first-level groups, and “assigning” second-level groups (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160004803 A1: A computer system with multiple processors and memory identifies a plurality of computation units for a chemical process flowsheet represented by a graph with a plurality of components. The plurality of components includes at least one group of strongly connected components. Each computation unit of the plurality of computation units is either a single component or a group of strongly connected components of the plurality of components. The computer system identifies two or more non-overlapping computation units of the plurality of computation units. All chemical inputs to the two or more non-overlapping computation units have been determined. The computer system processes the two or more non-overlapping computation units at least partially in parallel by processing each computation unit of the two or more non-overlapping computation units using a separate set of one or more processors. The computer system determines process flows for the chemical process flowsheet.
WO 2008/092147 A2: The methods and systems of the present invention include an analytical platform suitable for performing data projections and for publicizing methodologies to create an integrated, flexible and actionable view of data such as data pertaining to consumer behavior, sales of goods, and other business activities such as those relating to consumer-store relationships, etc. The methods and systems of the invention have the advantage, among other things, of combining, projecting, publicizing, aggregating, and otherwise processing multi-dimensional facts in flexible ways providing specification when executing aggregations. , rules for publicizing the application of interrogation times, dynamic selection and a mix of projection methodologies.
Dubuc et al., Mapping the Big Data Landscape: Technologies, Platforms and Paradigms for Real-Time Analytics of Data Streams, 2020: The ‘Big Data’ of yesterday is the ‘data’ of today. As technology progresses, new challenges arise and new solutions are developed. Due to the emergence of Internet of Things applications within the last decade, the field of Data Mining has been faced with the challenge of processing and analysing data streams in real-time, and under high data throughput conditions. This is often referred to as the Velocity aspect of Big Data. Whereas there are numerous reviews on Data Stream Mining techniques and applications, there is very little work surveying Data Stream processing paradigms and associated technologies, from data collection through to pre-processing and feature processing, from the perspective of the user, not that of the service provider. In this article, we evaluate a particular type of solution, which focuses on streaming data, and processing pipelines that permit online analysis of data streams that cannot be stored as-is on the computing platform. We review foundational computational concepts such as distributed computation, fault-tolerant computing, and computational paradigms/architectures. We then review the available technological solutions, and applications that pertain to data stream mining as case studies of these theoretical concepts. We conclude with a discussion of the field of data stream processing/analytics, future directions and research challenges.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights