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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response filed 01/13/2026.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9 and 20-21 have been examined here.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Applicant’s response filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Applicant’s response filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 7, that the claims recite one or more hardware elements for performing the functions of the system which perform steps that cannot be said to comprise mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that, given the receipt of such event notifications, a human could indeed perform the determination and identification steps given the received information. The mere requirement to perform such steps amounts to the generic computer implementation of the abstract idea, as outlined below. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argus, on pages 7-8, that the claims bring forth an improvement to a technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the filtering and classification of events using event sequences and composite events represents an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than to any particular technical component or technical field since, if practiced by hand outside the realm of the generic computer components recited, the advantages in event detection and filtering would be brought forth nonetheless. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Since the claims, at best, bring forth an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than to any technical component or computer technology, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
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, 4-5, 7-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 5 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process and a machine, respectively). The claimed invention of independent claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 5, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
an event sequence list comprising a plurality of predetermined event sequences in which each sequence comprises at least one event identifier identifying a corresponding one of a plurality of monitored events; (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could create an event sequence list of this type)
an event sequence array that stores a received event sequence in response to received event notifications, each generated by a system monitor and received via a communications link, wherein each received event notification is a notification of an unexpected or unwanted occurrence within a hardware module of the system; (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store received event sequences in an array in response to event notifications)
. . . for each received event notification. . . store a corresponding event identifier into the event sequence array and to determine whether the received event sequence matches at least one of the plurality of predetermined event sequences for determining a composite event and a corresponding response, wherein each of the plurality of predetermined event sequences comprises one or more event identifiers regardless of a chronological order of received event notifications, (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store an event identifier and determine whether an even sequence matches a plurality of predetermined event sequences; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of rule following since the claim outlined rules to be followed in response to received event notifications)
. . . for each received event notification. . . store a corresponding event identifier into the event sequence array and to determine whether the received event sequence matches at least one of the plurality of predetermined event sequences for determining a composite event and a corresponding response, wherein each of the plurality of event sequences is based on a chronological order of received event notifications, (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store an event identifier and determine whether an even sequence matches a plurality of predetermined event sequences; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of rule following since the claim outlined rules to be followed in response to received event notifications)
. . . for each received event notification. . .determine whether the received event sequence matches at least one of the plurality of predetermined event sequences in chronological order. . . (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether a received event sequence matches a plurality of predetermined event sequences in chronological order; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of rule following since the claim outlined rules to be followed in response to received event notifications)
. . . for each received event notification. . . identify a suspected composite event and to restart the timer when multiple event sequences in the event sequence list potentially match the received event sequence. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a suspected composite event and restart a timer when multiple sequences potentially match a received event sequence; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of rule following since the claim outlined rules to be followed in response to received event notifications)
the event sequence list further comprises a plurality of timeout periods including a corresponding timeout period for each of the plurality of predetermined event sequences, and (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the event sequence list used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above)
the controller, for each received event notification, is configured to identify a suspected composite event, program the timer with a corresponding timeout period, and restart the timer when multiple event sequences in the event sequence list potentially match the received event sequence. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a suspected composite event, set up a timer with a timeout period, and restart it when multiple events potentially match a received sequence; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of rule following since the claim outlined rules to be followed in response to received event notifications)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental process since, but for the requirement to implement the stepson a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the limitations could be performed by a human using their min, simple observation, evaluation, and judgement, and pen and paper.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
an event sequence list comprising a plurality of predetermined event sequences in which each sequence comprises at least one event identifier identifying a corresponding one of a plurality of monitored events; (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using a list)
An event manager for filtering safety and security events of a system, comprising: (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a controller coupled to the communications link that,. . . is configured to (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a timer, wherein the controller is configured to program/restart the timer (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a timer since the timer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity to keep time)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 4, 7-9 and 20-21, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 4:
wherein the controller is configured to ratify the received event sequence as a final composite event and to stop the timer when only one event sequence in the event sequence list matches the received event sequence.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could ratify a sequence as a final composite event and stop a timer when an event matches an event sequence; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of rule following since the claim outlined rules to be followed regarding the timer.
Claim 7:
is configured to ratify the received event sequence as a final composite event and to stop the timer when only one event sequence in the event sequence list matches the received event sequence.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could ratify a sequence as a final composite event and stop a timer when an event matches an event sequence,
Claim 8:
wherein the controller is further configured to generate an exception in the event of timeout of the timer.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an exception in the event of a timeout of the timer.
Claim 9:
further comprising a response block that provides at least one event response to a response handler identifying at least one of the suspected composite event and the final composite event.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the response handler and response block represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide an event response to an identified event.
Claim 20:
wherein the controller is further configured to generate an exception in the event of timeout of the timer.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an exception in the event of a timeout of the timer.
Claim 21:
a response block that provides at least one event response to a response handler identifying at least one of the suspected composite event and the final composite event.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide a response identifying at least one of the suspected composite event and a final composite event; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of rule following since the claim outlined rules to be followed regarding the events. Regarding the use of a response block and handler, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the response handler and response block represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 4, 7-9, and 20-21, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
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 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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628