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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments filed on February 17, 2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 15 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 20 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “deploying software” in line 3. In the interest of consistency, it is recommended that this be amended to “deploying the software”.
Claims 1 and 16 state “the feature” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a feature” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 contain a typographical error. They state “such that statis inputs are at least partially evaluated and cached at a policy update time rather than evaluate at runtime”. In the interest of consistency and to fix the typographical error, this limitation should read “such that the static inputs are at least partially evaluated and cached at a policy update time rather than evaluated at runtime”.
Claim 9 states “a software” and “modifying features of the software that is already deployed…” in lines 2 and 10. In the interest of consistency, it is recommended that these be amended to “the software” and “modifying the features of the software that are already deployed…”.
Claim 15 states “wherein the feature flag service further monitor dependency…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “further monitors dependency…” for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 19 states a typographical error. It states “an intermediary feature flags” in line 4 which should read “an intermediary feature flag” similar to claim 8 and 15.
Claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-19 depend on the objected to claims and do not resolve the deficiencies and thus, are objected to for at least the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "enacted when the pull request is merged" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “pull request” should be plural or singular. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “enacted when the pull requests are merged” for the purpose of further examination.
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 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 9-15 are directed to an system. However, the recited components of the system are software, which is none of a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” and thus non-statutory under § 101. Claim 9 states that the system comprises “a software” and “a repository”. The “repository” does not appear to be tied to or encompass any hardware. Therefore, these claim limitations are construed as a computer program per se. The claims are directed to functional descriptive material per se, and hence non-statutory.
Claims 10-15 depend on the rejected claim 9 and do not resolve the deficiencies and thus, are rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; and Claims 9-19 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 16: The limitation “identifying a codebase for the software that corresponds to a feature flag”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a feature flag and mentally identify, with or without the use of pen and paper, a codebase for a software that corresponds to the feature flag. The limitation “defining a set of rules”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate data and mentally define, with or without the use of pen and paper, a set of rules.
The limitation “generating an evaluation request”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate data and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, an evaluation request. The limitation “evaluating the input data using the latest version of the set of rules”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate input data and mentally evaluate, with or without the use of pen and paper, the input data using the latest version of the set of rules.
The limitation “generating response data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate data and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, response data, wherein the response data is a defined type for consistent data and an undefined type for any inconsistent input data.
Claim 9: The limitation “wherein the feature flags are evaluated to modify features of the software that is already deployed without requiring modification of source code for the software or implementing redeployment of the software on the computer system”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate feature flags and mentally modify, with or without the use of pen and paper, features of the software that is already deployed without requiring modification of source code for the software or implementing redeployment of the software on the computer system. The limitation “wherein input data is evaluated with a feature flag to generate a defined and undefined type of response output data”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate input data and mentally evaluate, with or without the use of pen and paper, the input data with a feature flag to generate a defined and undefined type of response output data.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 9 and 16 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1 and 16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements –“a computer system”, “a repository of a source version control system on distributed storage”, “a client system”, “a client database” and “a computer processing system comprises a processing unit; a communications interface; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to store instructions, wherein the processing unit execute the stored instructions to perform…” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1 and 16 recite the following additional elements – “deploying software to a computer system”, “storing a set of rules in a repository of a source version control system on distributed storage”, “monitoring any change or update in the set of rule”, “retrieving the latest version of the rules stored in the repository”, “communicating the evaluation request to a feature flag service, wherein the feature flag service communicates with connected clients with regards to changes in a policy for the set of rules”, “retrieving input data from a client database”, “wherein the set of rules are locally stored at the client system” and “response data cached at the client system” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering and storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claims 1 and 16 recite the following additional element – “wherein the feature flag pertains to a feature of the codebase for the software that is enabled or disabled by the feature flag without modifying source code in the codebase”, “wherein the set of rules correspond to at least one rule for evaluating the feature flag for enabling or disabling the feature of the software”, “wherein the response data is a defined type for consistent data and an undefined type for any inconsistent input data”, “evaluation using the latest version of the set of rules occurs at the client system with the response data cached at the client system to avoid subsequent communications with the feature flag service”, “wherein the evaluation using the latest version of the set of rules will either enable or disable the feature of the software” and “wherein the set of rules distinguishes between static inputs and dynamic inputs such that [static] inputs are at least partially evaluated and cached at a policy update time rather than [evaluated] at runtime” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements –“a repository” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 9 recites the following additional elements – “a software that is deployed to a computer system”, “storing a set of rules that correspond to feature flags for the software”, “the set of rules are monitored to identify any update or change in the set of rules”, “wherein the set of rules are locally stored at a client system” and “results cached at the client system” which are merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering and storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 9 recites the following additional element – “the set of rules correspond to at least one rule for evaluating a feature flag for enabling or disabling a feature of a software corresponding to a codebase, the feature of the codebase being enabled or disabled by the feature flag without modifying source code in the codebase” and “evaluation using the set of rules occurs at the client system with the results cached at the client system to avoid subsequent communications with the feature flag service”, “wherein the evaluation using the set of rules will either enable or disable the feature of the software” and “wherein the set of rules distinguishes between static inputs and dynamic inputs such that [static] inputs are at least partially evaluated and cached at a policy update time rather than [evaluated] at runtime” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 9 and 16 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9 and 16: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere instructions to apply an exception and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant data gathering and storage activity as also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide and/or store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner would like to note that the limitation of “modifying features of the software that is already deployed without requiring modification of source code for the software or implementing redeployment of the software on the computer system, by:…” as recited in claims 1 and 16 is an intended result of the preceding claim limitations of “identifying” “defining and storing”, “monitoring”, “retrieving”, “generating”, “communicating’, retrieving”, “evaluating” and “generating”. Therefore, the “modifying” limitation has been analyzed as a combination of mental processes and additional elements as analyzed above under Step2 A, Prong 1 and 2 and Step 2B.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 9 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 2 and 17, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “defining a rule in declarative query format” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a rule, just as in the independent claims above, mentally define, with or without the use of pen and paper, the rule in declarative query format. Further, claims 2 and 17 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “assigning an identifier to the defined rule” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a defined rule, just as in the independent claims above, mentally assign, with or without the use of pen and paper, an identifier to the defined rule. Further, claims 2 and 17 recite additional element of “storing the defined rule with the identifier in the repository” which is merely an insignificant data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claims 2 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2 and 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 3, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein defining the set of rules is achieved using a declarative query language” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate the set of rules, just as in the independent claims above, mentally use, with or without the use of pen and paper, a declarative query language to define the rules. Further, claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 4, it recite additional elements of “wherein the set of rules form the policy that is stored in the repository of the source version control system on the distributed storage and the changes to the policy are prepared by creating version control system pull request on the repository and enacted when the pull request is merged” which is merely an insignificant data gathering and storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely transmit/provide and/or store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 4 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 18, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “updating or changing of the set of rules which comprises steps of initiating an update request” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an update or change in the set of rules, just as in the independent claims above, mentally initiate, with or without the use of pen and paper, an update request. Further, claims 5 and 18 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “redefining the set of rules” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate rules, just as in the independent claims above, mentally redefine, with or without the use of pen and paper, the set of rules. Further, claims 5 and 18 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “merging the update request” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an update request, just as in the independent claims above, mentally merge, with or without the use of pen and paper, the update request. Further, claims 5 and 18 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “assigning a new identifier to an updated version of the set of rules” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate an updated version of rules, just as in the independent claims above, mentally assign, with or without the use of pen and paper, a new identifier to an updated version of the set of rules. Further, claims 5 and 18 recite additional element of “storing the updated version of the set of rules in the repository” which is merely an insignificant data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claims 5 and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 18 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 6 and 13, they recite additional elements of “wherein a defined type of response data is of a Boolean value corresponding to ‘true’ or ‘false’, or numeric value or string value” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 13 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 7 and 14, they recite additional elements of “wherein an undefined type of response data corresponds to at least one of: an ‘undefined value’, or an ‘undefined input’ for an unrecognized or inconsistent type of input data” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 14 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 8, 15 and 19, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “monitoring of dependencies between feature flags which includes defining an intermediary feature flag that is evaluated against at least one feature flag at a time and proceeding with a next feature flag if the response generated for the evaluation of a previous feature flag is a defined type of response” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate feature flags, just as in the independent claims above, mentally monitor, with or without the use of pen and paper, dependencies between the feature flags which includes defining an intermediary feature flags that is evaluated against at least one feature flag at a time and proceeding with a next feature flag if the response generated for the evaluation of a previous feature flag is a defined type of response. Further, claims 8, 15 and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 8, 15 and 19 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8, 15 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 10, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the set of rules is defined using a declarative query language” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a set of rules, just as in the independent claims above, mentally define, with or without the use of pen and paper, the set of rules using a declarative query language. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 11, it recite additional elements of “wherein the set of rules form a policy that is stored in the repository of a source version control system on distributed storage” which is merely an insignificant data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 11 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 12, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein each rule is assigned with an identifier” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate rules, just as in the independent claims above, mentally assign, with or without the use of pen and paper, an identifier to each rule. Further, claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 15-19, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to §103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 with respect to the §101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Examiner contends that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. However, this characterization is overly broad and fails to capture the specific nature of the claimed invention. The claims are not simply directed to the general concept of storing data; they are directed to a specific implementation that provides a technical solution to a technical problem.
The claimed invention addresses the technical problem of:
Reducing latency and network usage associated with communicating with a remote service.
Improving the efficiency of rules processing and access in a distributed computing environment.
Enhancing the performance and responsiveness of a client device.
The claims achieve this by:
Implementing a specific local storage approach for the setoff rules, with processing of the rules and caching results locally at the client to avoid subsequent communications mechanism with the feature flag service.
This is not an abstract idea; it is a concrete application of data storage/processing technology to solve a specific technological problem. The claims recite specific steps and components that are rooted in computer technology, including:
A client system with local storage.
Logic for local processing of rules.
Local caching
These elements transform the abstract idea of "storing data" into a patent-eligible application.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection to claim 1 above, it is the Examiner’s position that the Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the §101 rejection. Specifically, the claim limitation of “deploying software to a computer system” is an additional element and merely a recitation of insignificant data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
As for the claim limitation of “modifying features of the software that is already deployed without requiring modification of source code for the software or implementing redeployment of the software computer system, by:”, this limitation is the intended result of all the limitations that follow. Therefore, this limitation is a combination of various mental processes and additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and/or do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B. Please see the updated §101 rejection to claim 1 above.
The claim limitation of “wherein the set of rules distinguishes between static inputs and dynamic inputs such that [static] inputs are at least partially evaluated and cached at a policy update time rather than [evaluated] at runtime” is an additional element which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and/or amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
The claim limitation of “wherein the set of rules are locally stored at the client system” and “the response data cached at the client system” are merely recitations of insignificant data storage activity. The recitations of insignificant data storage activity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
The claim limitation of “occurs at the client system with the response data cached at the client system to avoid subsequent communications with the feature flag service” is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a preictal application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and/or does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, claim 1 does not recite or include any additional elements that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 1 and that amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Even if, arguendo, the claims were considered to be directed to an abstract idea, they clearly recite "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. The combination of elements in the claims provides a specific technological solution that goes beyond the routine and conventional use of a computer.
The "significantly more" elements include:
Specific Data Management Logic: The claims recite particular logic for determining what data to store locally and when to access it. This logic is not a generic computer function but a specific implementation designed to optimize data access.
Client-Side Optimization: The claims focus on optimizing performance at the client device by leveraging local storage. This client-side optimization is a specific technical improvement over prior art systems that relied solely on remote data access.
Reduced Network Load: By reducing the need for communication with a remote service, the claimed invention provides a tangible technical benefit in the form of reduced network load and improved system efficiency. This is a concrete improvement in the functioning of a computer network.
These elements, in combination, transform the abstract idea (if one exists) into a patent- eligible invention. They represent a specific application of computer technology that provides a concrete and technical improvement.
In particular, claim 1 recites an approach comprising local storing and processing of the set of rules at a client system, which therefore avoids further communications with a remote service. As such, this is non-generic computer activity that provides a very specific implementation directed to a particular setup of a client and remote service configuration, since a particular machine or manufacture is integral to the claim. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(d),: “Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: …Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction
with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in
MPEP § 2196.05(b)...” (Emphasis added). As such, pursuant to at least MPEP 2106.04(d), Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is statutory pursuant to 35 USC 101. For at least the same reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2-20 are likewise statutory pursuant to 35 USC 101.
In addition, the claimed approach improves the functioning of the computer itself since local caching of the results at the client leads to faster response times for the user. This improvement in latency is a technical advantage that stems from the computer's ability to access data more quickly with the need to communicate with a remote feature flag service. Furthermore, by reducing the need to fetch data from a remote service, the invention reduces the consumption of the computer's processing and memory resources, leading to more efficient operation of the computer itself. As described in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the claimed invention provides an improvement to the functioning of the computer.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection and response to arguments to claim 1 above, it is the Examiner’s position that the Applicant’s amended claim language does not overcome the §101 rejection. Specifically, the claim limitation of “deploying software to a computer system” is an additional element and merely a recitation of insignificant data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
As for the claim limitation of “modifying features of the software that is already deployed without requiring modification of source code for the software or implementing redeployment of the software computer system, by:”, this limitation is the intended result of all the limitations that follow. Therefore, this limitation is a combination of various mental processes and additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and/or do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
The claim limitation of “wherein the set of rules distinguishes between static inputs and dynamic inputs such that [static] inputs are at least partially evaluated and cached at a policy update time rather than [evaluated] at runtime” is an additional element which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and/or amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
The claim limitation of “wherein the set of rules are locally stored at the client system” and “the response data cached at the client system” are merely recitations of insignificant data storage activity. The recitations of insignificant data storage activity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
The claim limitation of “occurs at the client system with the response data cached at the client system to avoid subsequent communications with the feature flag service” is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a preictal application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and/or does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, after analyzing each and every limitation of claim 1 individually and as a whole, the Examiner has concluded that claim 1 does not recite or include any additional elements that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 1 and that amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Applicant also notes that the amended version of claim 1 also recites the enabling or disabling of a feature in software. This is also not directed any abstract idea, but is instead directed to the concrete application of data storage/processing technology to solve a specific technological problem, which is the enabling or disabling of a feature of an item of software — specifically using the local caching approach described above.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the §101 rejection above, the claim limitation of “wherein the evaluation using the latest version of the set of rules will either enable or disable the feature of the software” is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
MPEP 2106 also makes it clear that "a claim with limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process". Indeed, this section of the MPEP cites to SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which states that inventions that "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind" (emphasis added) do not fall within the category of a mental process.
With regard to the claimed subject matter, it is not possible for a human mind by itself to deploying software to a computer system. Nor is the human mind by itself able to modify features of the software that is already deployed in any manner where that modification is done without requiring modification of source code for the software or implementing redeployment of the software on the computer system. The human mind simply does not have the concept of a software deployment or feature modification as understood by the claim. As such, since the claim cannot be performed entirely in the human mind, the claim therefore pursuant to MPEP 2106 does not fall into the category of a mental process.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees that the “deploying software to a computer system” cannot be performed in the human mind. However, as can be seen in the updated §101 rejection and previously stated in the response to arguments above, the claim limitation of “deploying software to a computer system” is an additional element that is merely a recitation of insignificant data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
As for the claim limitation of “modifying features of the software that is already deployed without requiring modification of source code for the software or implementing redeployment of the software computer system, by:”, this limitation is the intended result of all the limitations that follow. Therefore, this limitation is a combination of various mental processes and additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and/or do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Applicant appears to argue that since “the claim cannot be performed entirely in the human mind”, it is then eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. However, MPEP 2106 states that a claim need only contain a limitation(s) that can be practically performed in the mind to recite a mental process (Step 2A, Prong 1). The other limitation(s) of the claims are analyzed as being additional elements (Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B) to determine if they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more. Therefore, the entire claim (i.e. every limitation) does not need to be directed to a mental process for the claim to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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 LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2197