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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Rejections under section 112
Applicant provides no argument that “IIoT data” is not non-functional descriptive matter without patentable weight.
Rejections under section 101
Applicant argues that limitations held to recite an abstract idea do not recite an abstract idea because they are “technical in nature.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Technical nature” is not a test in determining whether a limitation recites an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that a human cannot reconcile federated IIoT device data using probabilistic multi-attribute weighting. This is irrelevant, because using probabilistic multi-attribute weighing is not a mental process but a calculation, and calculations do not need to be practically performable in the human mind to be abstract. MPEP § 2106.05(a)(2)(I).
Applicant argues that a human cannot compute match-score thresholds across distributed sources. This is irrelevant, because computing is not a mental process but a calculation, and calculations do not need to be practically performable in the human mind to be abstract. MPEP § 2106.05(a)(2)(I).
Applicant argues that a human cannot compute match-score thresholds across distributed sources in real time. Firstly, that the computation is “in real time” is not claimed. Secondly, even if it were, the capacity to compute in real time comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, and therefore does not represent and improvement to technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a); see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that a human cannot manage canonical device objects with selective hashed comparisons. Firstly, they can: it is practically performable to calculate a hash and compare two numbers. Secondly, the use of hashes is solely to take advantage of the increase in speed of the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, Specification [0063], and therefore does not represent and improvement to technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a); see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that a human cannot dynamically throttle procurement traffic based on learned usage profiles. This is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor does it represent significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Applicant’s reliance on Enfish is not persuasive. No improvement to a technological process is asserted. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, a putatively improved matching algorithm is disclosed. This is not a technological process, and that which is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the claims is abstract. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Applicant’s reliance on McRO is not persuasive. Matching product information on a website to a given product is not a technological process. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant’s reliance on Amdocs is not persuasive. The additional element there was not conventional; here it is. See Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that Berkheimer evidence was not given for those limitations held to be directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection cites BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to stand for the proposition that receiving information over a network connection is well-understood, routine, and conventional because BASCOM is a court decision listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) are evidence under Berkheimer that an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(B).
Taken as a whole, the recited technological mechanism for obtaining is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the mechanisms for validating, merging, and updating are not technological but rather abstract, and therefore the invention is not directed to patentable subject matter.
Rejections under section 103
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. New grounds of rejection are presented below in light of amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. “IIoT data” is nonfunctional descriptive matter without patentable weight. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “identifying procured data to be stored and identifying, for each portion of the procured data, a corresponding data source,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which data is to be stored and its data source. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “matching and validating the procured data by comparing the procured data with device records maintained in a database, each device record representing a canonical device object having a plurality of attributes comprising at least manufacturer, model number, product SKU, communication protocol, and device manual information,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “matching” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what data matches the procured data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “identifying a set of domain specific heuristics that make up an overall heuristic framework, each heuristic comprising a multi-attribute conditional rule that evaluates at least two of the plurality of attributes of the canonical device object and produces an attribute-level match value,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which heuristics apply to the domain. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “associating a plurality of weights with the plurality of domain specific heuristics, wherein the plurality of weights specify an attribute-specific probabilistic significance for the corresponding heuristic, and wherein at least the manufacturer, model number, and product SKU attributes are assigned higher probabilistic significance relative to product-name or description-based attributes,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “associating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to probabilistic significance, e.g., forming a judgment that a given product SKU is more likely to uniquely identify a product than a product name, and assigning a number thereto as a weight. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “computing, for each comparison of procured data against a device record, a numerical match score based on a weighted aggregation of the attribute-level match values produced by the domain specific heuristics,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “validating a data efficacy of the procured data by comparing the numerical match score against a threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “validating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the match score is above the threshold. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “in response to the numerical match score exceeding the threshold, automatically updating the canonical device object in the database by selectively replacing only those attributes for which the procured data indicates an improvement relative to a stored hash of a prior version of the canonical device object,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “updating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the procured data indicates an improvement. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “detecting collection of new information from at least one of the plurality of online data sources and, in response, adding additional domain specific heuristics to the overall heuristic framework, deprecating older heuristics, or reassigning the plurality of weights to reflect observed changes in attribute significance,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “detecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to probabilistic significance, e.g., forming a judgment that a given product SKU is now even more or less likely to uniquely identify a product than a product name based on the new information, and assigning a number thereto as a weight. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “experimentally refining the plurality of weights over time based on validation results obtained from previous numerical match scores and corresponding updates of the canonical device objects so as to improve accuracy of automated device-record reconciliation in the database,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “refining” encompasses a person managing personal behavior by repeating the same steps and calculations. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely decision-making involved in maintaining a database. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of maintaining a database is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “implementing procurement of the data from a plurality of online data sources, each online data source being associated with a plurality of measures that regulate automated access and that define a source-specific user profile learned over time,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “intelligently throttling a set of scans performed on each online data source based on the corresponding source-specific usage profile so that the scans remain within bounds of normal site usage while permitting concurrent procurement from the plurality of online data sources,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of maintaining a database to the technological environment of online data. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “implementing procurement of the data from a plurality of online data sources, each online data source being associated with a plurality of measures that regulate automated access and that define a source-specific user profile learned over time,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “intelligently throttling a set of scans performed on each online data source based on the corresponding source-specific usage profile so that the scans remain within bounds of normal site usage while permitting concurrent procurement from the plurality of online data sources,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because such nature is demonstrated, de Wulf, Web Scraping without getting blocked, pg. 6 (“Also, make sure your request rate is random (e.g. anything between a couple of seconds to a minute).”), by a publication. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of maintaining a database because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 13:
The abstract idea of maintaining a database is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the data comprises IIoT data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular source or type of data. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of maintaining a database to the technological environment of online data. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the data comprises IIoT data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0004], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of maintaining a database because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quist, US 2015/0286725 A1, in view of Dua, US 2014/0101172 A1.
As per claim 12, Quist teaches:
implementing procurement of data from a plurality of online data sources, Quist ¶ 0060, where web crawling is procurement;
identifying procured data to be stored and identifying, for each portion of the procured data, a corresponding data source, Quist ¶ 0060, where raw data is collected;
matching and validating the procured data by comparing the procured data with device records maintained in a database, Quist ¶ 0070, where updating inherently matches and validates procured data, each device record representing a canonical device object having a plurality of attributes, Quist ¶ 0060, where the columns of the relational data are attributes as claimed, where the object , comprising at least manufacturer, model number, product SKU, communication protocol, and device manual information, where this is non-patentable descriptive matter without patentable weight.
in response to a numerical match score exceeding the threshold, automatically updating the canonical device object in the database by selectively replacing only those attributes for which the procured data indicates an improvement relative to a prior version of the canonical device object, Quist ¶ 0101.
Quist, however, does not teach, while the analogous and compatible art of Dua teaches:
identifying a set of domain specific heuristics that make up an overall heuristic framework, each heuristic comprising a multi-attribute conditional rule that evaluates at least two of the plurality of attributes of the canonical device object and produces an attribute-level match value, Dua ¶ 0017, where the matching configuration is the set;
associating a plurality of weights with the plurality of domain specific heuristics, wherein the plurality of weights specify an attribute-specific probabilistic significance for the corresponding heuristic, Dua ¶ 0018, where fields are the claimed attributes per-field match weights are defined in the algorithm specified by the matching configuration, and wherein at least the manufacturer, model number, and product SKU attributes are assigned higher probabilistic significance relative to product-name or description-based attributes, where this specific semantic meanings of the fields/attributes is non-functional descriptive matter without patentable weight;
computing, for each comparison of procured data against a device record, a numerical match score based on a weighted aggregation of the attribute-level match values produced by the domain specific heuristics, Dua ¶¶ 0017-18, where the sum of normalized match weights is computed as the match score;
validating a data efficacy of the procured data by comparing the numerical match score against a threshold, Dua ¶ 0017, where the match score is compared to a threshold;
detecting collection of new information from at least one of the plurality of online data sources and, in response, adding additional domain specific heuristics to the overall heuristic framework, deprecating older heuristics, or reassigning the plurality of weights to reflect observed changes in attribute significance, Dua ¶¶ 0022-29, 0075, where collection implicitly happens during at design time, where weights are assigned based on observations at design time; and
experimentally refining the plurality of weights over time based on validation results obtained from previous numerical match scores and corresponding updates of the canonical device objects so as to improve accuracy of automated device-record reconciliation in the database, Dua ¶¶ 0022-29, where a user re-configuring a matching configuration file is the experimental refining.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Quist to implement user-configured probabilistic matching as in Dua in order to determine if a scraped webpage contains data that can be used to update stored structured data.
Neither Quist nor Dua, however, teach:
each online data source being associated with a plurality of measures that regulate automated access and that define a source-specific usage profile learned over time; or
intelligently throttling a set of scans performed on each online data source based on the corresponding source-specific usage profile so that the scans remain within bounds of normal site usage while permitting concurrent procurement from the plurality of online data sources.
The analogous and compatible art of de Wulf, however, teaches that conventional web servers use request rate to detect scraping, and to throttle scraping to ensure that scans remain within bounds of normal site usage. De Wulf, pg. 6.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Quist with those of de Wulf to implement request rate throttling so as to not have the scraping detected.
Neither Quist, Dua or de Wolf, however, teach:
in response to the numerical match score exceeding the threshold, automatically updating the canonical device object in the database by selectively replacing only those attributes for which the procured data indicates an improvement relative to a stored hash of a prior version of the canonical device object.
Official notice is taken that data comparisons using a hash are faster.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Quist to store the hash of stored data so as to make data comparisons faster.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, and Quist further teaches:
wherein the data comprises an Industrial Internet of Things (IioT) lioT data, where this is non-functional descriptive matter without patentable weight.
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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159