DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 4/8/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 10/23/2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 15-17 are processes (methods), and claims 1-14 and 18-20 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and 18) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A system comprising:
at least one memory that stores instructions; and
one or more processors configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from an identified sensor installation from among one or more sensor installations, an event message indicative of an event detected by the identified sensor installation, the identified sensor installation being associated with a facility (observation);
validating the event against a schema of an identified event type from among a plurality of event types by comparing the event message to metadata of the identified event type, the metadata of the identified event type being contained in an event metadata repository (evaluation);
if the event is valid (evaluation);
transmitting the event message to a software application associated with the facility to trigger an event reaction that is linked to the identified event type (judgment); and
causing presentation, at a user device accessing the software application, of status data for the facility, the status data being based on the event reaction (opinion); and
if the event is not valid (evaluation), rejecting the event message (opinion).
Claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and 18) is directed to a series of steps for reacting to an event, which is a managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the identified sensor installations, memory, processors, software application, user device, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See Specification [0020] discussing the multiple types of generic sensors that could be used. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the identified sensor installations, memory, processors, software application, user device, and non-transitory computer-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 15, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Other additional elements in the dependent claims that recite no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component are event bus, event modeling tool, user interface, sensors, cloud-based application
Therefore, claims 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0263945to Siebel et al. (“Siebel”).
7. With regards to claim 1 (Similarly claims 15 and 18), Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
at least one memory that stores instructions (See [0256] discussing memory implementations.); and
one or more processors configured by the instructions to perform operations (See [0147] discussing the integration component 202 may include one or more servers, nodes, or other computing resources.) comprising:
receiving, from an identified sensor installation from among one or more sensor installations, an event message indicative of an event detected by the identified sensor installation, the identified sensor installation being associated with a facility (See [0147] discussing the receiving of data from a data source such as a sensors or smart devices and [0248] discussing each stream service is a function of a data flow event argument that encapsulates a stream of data coming from a sensor data or some other measurement device.);
validating the event against a schema of an identified event type from among a plurality of event types by comparing the event message to metadata of the identified event type, the metadata of the identified event type being contained in an event metadata repository (See [0185] discussing the data validation and entity type definitions may include a schema to dictate a related table in a physical database schema where the data resides and may include application logic to declare functions which can be called when executing business rules to process data, [0158] discussing using metadata to identify the type of message, [0250] discussing data flow events and the analytics performed.);
if the event is valid;
transmitting the event message to a software application associated with the facility to trigger an event reaction that is linked to the identified event type (See [0477] discussing campaigns to deploy automatically when a trigger event occurs, such as when a customer updates certain profile attributes, becomes eligible for a new product or offer, or takes a specific action such as visiting an offer web page.); and
causing presentation, at a user device accessing the software application, of status data for the facility, the status data being based on the event reaction (See [0585] discussing the outputting of analytic processes may be alerts and calculations that are then stored in a database and made available to designated end users as analysis results.); and
if the event is not valid, rejecting the event message (See [0160] discussing if an error is located during validation the integration component may flag the message to be omitted from storage, to be requested for retransmission, or to be processed (e.g., to be filled in with extrapolated values) before storage.).
8. With regards to claim 2 (Similarly claims 16 and 19), Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the validating of the event comprises determining that the event message conforms to the schema of the identified event type as defined by the metadata (See [0185] discussing the data validation, [0158] discussing using metadata to identify the type of message, [0250] discussing data flow events and the analytics performed.).
9. With regards to claim 3 (Similarly claims 17 and 20), Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the validating of the event comprises determining that the event message has a standardized payload conforming to the schema of the identified event type as defined by the metadata (See [0185] discussing the data validation and entity type definitions may include a schema to dictate a related table in a physical database schema where the data resides and may include application logic to declare functions which can be called when executing business rules to process data, [0158] discussing using metadata to identify the type of message, [0250] discussing data flow events and the analytics performed.).
10. With regards to claim 4, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the one or more sensor installations comprise a plurality of sensor installations, each sensor installation associated with a respective facility, the facilities including a first subset of facilities associated with a first tenant and a second subset of facilities associated with a second tenant, the plurality of event types including a plurality of standard event types for which respective metadata are contained in the event metadata
repository, and the metadata of each standard event type defining a respective standardized payload for event messages of the standard event type (See [0151] discussing that the sensors are associated with a facility and facilities are associated with a sensor, [0184]-[0185] discussing the data validation and entity type definitions may include a schema to dictate a related table in a physical database schema where the data resides and may include application logic to declare functions which can be called when executing business rules to process data.).
11. With regards to claim 5, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the transmitting of the event message comprises routing, in a first routing operation by an event bus, the event message to the software application in real- time, the event bus further performing a second routing operation to route the event message to a storage component that is accessible via the software application (See Fig. 6 depicting integration bus (3608) as a data communication hub for messages and[0211]-[0213] discussing the integration service bus acting as both a message consumer and producer, and the data services component receiving messages from the bus, see also [0175].).
12. With regards to claim 6, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the event metadata repository contains metadata of each of the plurality of event types, the metadata of each of the plurality of event types comprises an event type identifier for the event type (See [0145] discussing type based systems and validation constraints. See also [0142] discussing type systems and automatic triggers.), and the operations further comprising:
identifying the identified event type by detecting the event type identifier of the identified event type in the event message (See [0248]-[0250] discussing data flow events identification in the data stream using analytics of the event.); and
identifying the facility by detecting a facility identifier of the facility in the event message (See [0252] discussing generating an alert based on the analytics of the type to a human operator.).
13. With regards to claim 7, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the plurality of event types includes one or more standard event types and one or more user-defined event types (See [0249] discussing a base analytic type and [Table 00020] depicting a user-defined threshold. See also [0269] discussing base classes.).
14. With regards to claim 8, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the one or more sensor installations comprise a plurality of sensor installations, each sensor installation associated with a respective facility, the facilities including a first subset of facilities associated with a first tenant and a second subset of facilities associated with a second tenant, the identified sensor installation and the user device being associated with the first tenant (See [0151]-[0152] discussing that the sensors are associated with a facility and facilities are associated with a sensor and data sources can include sensors, smart devices. See also [0059] discussing connecting all customer end points in an IoT system to aggregate information from the sensors, including smart phones, using those same end user devices as offering vehicles. Examiner is interpreting smart devices to include a user’s smart phone.).
15. With regards to claim 9, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the plurality of event types includes a plurality of standard event types and a plurality of user-defined event types, the first tenant and the second tenant each having access to the plurality of standard event types, and the first tenant and the second tenant having access to different subsets of the plurality of user-defined event types (See [0469] discussing user defined rules and managed action in response time to meet workflow processing.).
16. With regards to claim 10, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the plurality of user-defined event types were created using an event modeling tool (See [0469] discussing the type designer tool. See generally [0448]-[0467] discussing different tools for users to use implementing the events.), the operations further comprising:
causing presentation of a user interface of the event modeling tool (See [0462] discussing the interactive display caused by the report writing tool. See generally [0448]-[0467] discussing different tools for users to use implementing the events.);
receiving, via the user interface and from a user of the first tenant, user input to define an additional user-defined event type, the user input including metadata of the additional user-defined event type (See [0462] discussing the interactive display caused by the report writing tool and [0466] discussing creating type definitions in the type designer tool.); and
in response to receiving the user input, storing the metadata of the additional user- defined event type in the event metadata repository to be accessible to the first tenant and inaccessible to the second tenant (See [0462]discussing the type model can also be extended to reference existing external data sources in addition to persisting new data within databases.).
17. With regards to claim 11, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the user input identifies a standard event type from among the plurality of standard event types, the additional user-defined event type being an extended version of the standard event type (See [0469] discussing user defined rules and managed action in response time to meet workflow processing.).
18. With regards to claim 12, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the identified sensor installation comprises one or more sensors and a data collection system connected to the one or more sensors (See [0151]-[0152] discussing that the sensors are associated with a facility and facilities are associated with a sensor and data sources can include sensors, smart devices.).
19. With regards to claim 13, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the event reaction comprises automatic adjustment of a workflow associated with the facility to reflect a task, and the status data includes the task (See [0456] discussing the workflow tool to set task and [0469] discussing automatically monitor data feeds and type state changes at scale, trigger events based on user defined rules, and manage action response times to meet workflow processing timing requirements.) .
20. With regards to claim 14, Siebel disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the software application is a cloud-based application that subscribes to events of the identified event type (See [0219]-[0222] discussing implementation on cloud-based platform.).
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed towards a mental process or organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the human mind cannot receive, process, or route electronic messages. Applicant has included the additional elements of electronic/computerized messaging in their arguments. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III states, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” The claims are not inherently technical and being technical does not exclude a claim from being found abstract per the §101 guidance of the MPEP. Applicant argues that the claims are a technical data processing pipeline and not claiming how people interact with one another. Examiner disagrees. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” The limitations include instruction on how to process a message. The activity is the falls within instructions.
Applicant argues the claim is integrate into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. See Ex Parte Desjardins discussing the claimed improvement must reflected in the claim itself and that the specification alone is insufficient to support a patent eligible determination. Applicant’s argument that the claims amount to be practical application/significantly more under Step 2A/2B of the MPEP analysis is not persuasive because an improvement (sorting/formatting) of conventional electronic messages technologies is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Instead the argued improvement represent improvements to the abstract idea of the certain methods of organizing human activity as discussed above. In contrast, the 2019 PEG cite to “a modification of Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid web page” (i.e., the invention of DDR Holdings) to demonstrate an “improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” That is, the improvements achieved by the claimed invention appear to be directed towards improvements to business practices (i.e., to save time and effort, e.g., see Spec [0003]) and/or to commerce (i.e., improves customer experience, e.g., see Spec. [0002] or reduced complexity and overhead , e.g., see Spec. [0043]) rather than technical/technological improvements to those disclosed in, for example, DDR Holdings and Examples 37-42 of the 2019 PEG.
Applicant argues the overall combination is a technical improvement. Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(b) states, “The Court considered the additional elements "as an ordered combination," and determined that "the computer components … ‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’" and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer." 573 U.S. at 225 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972).” The additional elements do not rise above merely applying the abstract idea on a generic computer. In ordered combination, as indicated above, the claims are that of a computer operating as it normally would.
Applicant traverse the §102 rejection based on the Spec. [0022] of a sensor. Arguing that Siebel’s interaction with a web-page or a profile updating triggering an event would not meet the definition. Examiner disagrees. Spec. [0022] states, “In some cases, sensors convert physical phenomena into electronic data signals that can be processed by computing systems.” Which appears to include a person interacting with a computing system just like Siebel. Thus, Siebel computing system would be the “sensor” processing the interaction with the webpage, which would be a real world event.
Applicant argues that Siebel is directed towards data quality and conditional gating. Examiner does not disagree, but finds the argument to be circular logic. If the condition being gated for is the quality of the data, then it would read on conditional gating systems. Examiner maintains position.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights