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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final, first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 10/27/2023 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 10/15/2025, amending claim 1, 9, 14, and 17-18.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 112, will be withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC 103 – the rejection is removed for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Response to Argument under 35 USC 101:
Applicants argue: see applicant remarks pages 17-18
As the present specification explains, "software systems are built with many complex programmed functions that execute internally in hidden and non-transparent code." Specification [0003]. This is a technical problem with conventional systems. "Systems and methods described herein are associated with a computer implemented
autonomous system for tracking execution paths and states of dynamic calculations of a calculation system between multiple execution runs." Specification
[0018].
"'[T]he present tracking system can provide visual information about state changes between both execution runs ... This provides visual access into the previously hidden execution path of a calculation system that is an improvement over previous software tracking systems that do not provide behind-the-scenes execution paths or data value results." [0021]
The present technical solution and graphical visual execution trail helps to diagnose and/or troubleshoot any potential alerts, identify errors in the calculation code, or identify unexpected results that improve upon conventional systems.
Specification [0138].
Therefore, any judicial exception is integrated into a practical application and the claims are statutory under step 2A, prong 2.
Furthermore, claims that are "necessarily rooted in computer technology" (DOR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245) are patent-eligible. Claim 1 is rooted in computer technology due to at least inputting executable code into a memory, executing the executable code, re-executing the executable code, and in-real time, tracking the plurality of dynamic functions that are executed, and generating an execution path of functions that were executed during the second execution. These functions cannot be performed without a computer and thus the claim is necessarily rooting in computer technology.
Independent claims 8 and 15 have been amended in a similar manner as claim 1 although they recite a different scope. Thus, for similar reasons, these claims are also patent eligible. All rejections should now be overcome, and all claims should be in condition for allowance.
Examiner respectfully disagree:
The Applicant's Specification titled "AUTONOMOUS MECHANISM FOR TRACKING EXECUTION PATHS IN DYNAMIC SYSTEMS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems directed to execution tracking system may be used to determine: how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process by different calculation expressions and conditional expressions. " (figure 2).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the abstract idea for execution tracking system may be used to determine: how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process and visually display information to a user because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer of generate an alerts associated with a potential event related to the one or more activities. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite for execution tracking system may be used to determine: how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process and visually display information to a user. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant’s claim as recited above the abstract idea of execution tracking system may be used to determine: how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process by different calculation expressions and conditional expressions. Which is “mathematical calculations, formulas or equations” expressly categorized under Mathematical Concepts. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II). See applicant specification starting [0028]
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, a processor, a memory, a computing device, and a user interface are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 8, and 15 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, a processor, a memory, a computing device, and a user interface. Examiner asserts that a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, a processor, a memory, a computing device, and a user interface are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, with data mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data) the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.059d)).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Examiner Note: with regard to the last limitation “detect that the second execution is a suspicious execution run based on at least one or more alerts that are caused by the execution state changes to cause a verification that the programming change of the plurality of dynamic functions is configured correctly”, the specification disclose in [0080-0081], the alerts/warning 840 show that an alert …. automatically detect suspicious execution runs and/or data value changes when certain alerts or warnings are triggered from one execution to another execution. The tracking system 100 may generate an additional alert, for example, visually highlighting the newly triggered alert on the GUI tracking display 800 as well as the user data 10 change that caused the trigger. In another embodiment, a pop-up window may be displayed that identifies the newly triggered alert/warning along with the user change. it appears here that the system display the detected alert to allow the users to know exactly what data values …. And alerts were calculated or changed (see [0138]).
Claim Rejections 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (process), claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory (machine) and claims 15-20 are directed to a system (machine). Thus, claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
inputting, into a memory of a computing device, executable code including a plurality of dynamic functions that are configured to sequentially execute, each dynamic function of the plurality of dynamic functions being interdependent on at least one other dynamic function based on a plurality of calculation attributes;
wherein one or more of the dynamic functions have at least one or more calculation expressions and one or more conditional expressions, the calculation expressions and conditional expressions being dependent on one or more of the plurality of calculation attributes from other dynamic functions;
for a first set of input values, executing a first execution of the executable code including the plurality of dynamic functions to generate a first final result, wherein the plurality of calculation attributes have a first set of calculation attribute values during run-time;
in response to a user, via a graphical user interface (GUI), changing at least one calculation attribute value from the first set of input values to a second value, re-executing the executable code including the plurality of dynamic functions to generate a second final result in a second execution;
during the second execution in real-time, tracking the plurality of dynamic functions that are executed for generating the second final result and generating an execution path of functions that were executed during the second execution;
determining, from the functions that were executed, execution state changes between the first execution and the second execution including how one or more calculation expressions are calculated during the second execution and identifying a second set of calculation attribute values of the calculated expressions that occurred during the second execution;
identifying triggered conditional expressions which include conditional expressions from the dynamic functions that were triggered during the second execution, wherein the triggered conditional expressions are included in the execution path;
displaying visually, on the GUI, the execution path that visually shows hidden execution details including a progression of how the at least one calculation attribute value that was changed caused subsequent changes in execution results at subsequently executed dynamic functions in the plurality of dynamic functions;
generating and displaying, on the GUI, a summary of tracking results to visually identify attribute value changes between the first execution and the second execution, wherein the summary of tracking includes the first set of calculation attribute values that occurred during the first execution and the second set of calculation attribute values that occurred during the second execution; and
detecting that the second execution is a suspicious execution run based on at least one or more alerts that are caused by the execution state changes to cause a verification that the plurality of dynamic functions is configured correctly.
Claim 8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes stored thereon computer-executable instructions that when executed by at least a processor of a computer cause the computer to:
input, into a memory of the computer, executable code including a plurality of dynamic functions that are configured to execute sequentially, each dynamic function of the plurality of dynamic functions being interdependent on at least one other dynamic function based on a plurality of calculation attributes;
wherein one or more of the dynamic functions have at least one or more calculation expressions and one or more conditional expressions, the calculation expressions and the conditional expressions being dependent on one or more of the plurality of calculation attributes from other dynamic functions;
for a first set of input values, execute a first execution of the executable code including the plurality of dynamic functions to generate a first final result, wherein the plurality of calculation attributes have a first set of calculation attribute values during run-time;
re-execute the executable code including the plurality of dynamic functions to generate a second final result in a second execution after a change is made to a selected calculation attribute value or after a programming change is made to one or more of the dynamic functions;
during the second execution in real-time, track the plurality of dynamic functions that and executed for generating the second final result and determine an execution path during the second execution;
determine, from the dynamic functions that were executed, execution state changes between the first execution and the second execution including how one or more calculation expressions are calculated during the second execution, and identify a second set of calculation attribute values of the calculated expressions that occurred during the second execution;
generate and display visually, on a graphical user interface GUI, the execution path that visually shows a sequence of executed dynamic functions and a summary of tracking results to visually identify attribute value changes between the first execution and the second execution; and
detect that the second execution is a suspicious execution run based on at least one or more alerts that are caused by the execution state changes to cause a verification that the programming change of the plurality of dynamic functions is configured correctly.
Claim 15. A computing system, comprising:
at least one processor connected to at least one memory;
a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions stored thereon that when executed by at least the processor cause the processor to:
input into the memory, executable code including a plurality of dynamic functions that are configured to execute sequentially, wherein one more dynamic functions of the plurality of dynamic functions are interdependent on one or more other dynamic functions based on a plurality of calculation attributes;
wherein one or more dynamic functions have at least one or more calculation expressions and one or more conditional expressions, wherein the calculation expressions and the conditional expressions are dependent on one or more of the plurality of calculation attributes from other dynamic functions;
for a first set of input values, execute a first execution of the executable code including the plurality of dynamic functions to generate a first final result, wherein the plurality of calculation attributes have a first set of calculation attribute values during run-time;
re-execute the executable code including the plurality of dynamic functions to generate a second final result in a second execution after a change is made to a selected calculation attribute value or after a programming change is made to one or more of the dynamic functions;
during the second execution, track the plurality of dynamic functions that were executed for generating the second final result and determine an execution path during the second execution;
determine, from the dynamic functions that were executed, execution state changes between the first execution and the second execution including how one or more calculation expressions are calculated during the second execution, and identify a second set of calculation attribute values of the calculated expressions that occurred during the second execution;
generate and display visually, on a graphical user interface GUI, the execution path that visually shows a sequence of executed dynamic functions and a summary of tracking results to visually identify attribute value changes between the first execution and the second execution; and
detect that the second execution run is a suspicious execution run based on at least one or more alerts that are caused by the execution state changes to cause a verification that the plurality of dynamic functions is configured correctly.
The Applicant's Specification titled "AUTONOMOUS MECHANISM FOR TRACKING EXECUTION PATHS IN DYNAMIC SYSTEMS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems directed to execution tracking system may be used to determine: how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process by different calculation expressions and conditional expressions. " (figure 2).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the abstract idea for execution tracking system may be used to determine: how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process and visually display information to a user because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer of generate an alerts associated with a potential event related to the one or more activities. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite for execution tracking system may be used to determine: how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process and visually display information to a user. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant’s claim as recited above the abstract idea of execution tracking system may be used to determine: how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process by different calculation expressions and conditional expressions. Which is “mathematical calculations, formulas or equations” expressly categorized under Mathematical Concepts. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II). See applicant specification starting [0028]
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claims 2 wherein the tracking includes generating a sequence of execution from the functions that were executed during the second execution and exposing portions of logic from the functions that were executed from the executable code.
claim 3 (Similarly claims 10 and 17) generating a simplified expression for one or more calculation expressions that were executed, wherein the simplified expression for corresponding calculation expression includes data values inserted into the corresponding calculation expression; and
displaying the simplified expressions to visually identify how the calculation expression was calculated during the second execution run.
claims 4 (Similarly claims 11 and 18) wherein the tracking includes identifying and displaying a change type for indicating what caused an associated change in value of a calculation attribute between the first execution and the second execution.
claims 5 (Similarly claim 12) further comprising storing the one or more calculation attribute values that were involved in producing the first final result in the first set of calculation attribute values and displaying, via the GUI, the first set of calculation attribute values.
claims 6 (Similarly claims 13 and 19) identifying and displaying one or more alerts triggered in the execution path caused by one or more changed calculation attribute values in the plurality of dynamic functions to determine conditions that led to different execution paths, unexpected results, or logical faults.
claims 7 (Similarly claims 14 and 20) for a calculation attribute that changed in value in the second execution, generating and displaying an execution trail link in the summary of tracking results;
wherein the execution trail link is configured to be selectable and upon selection, generates and displays execution trail details that show how the calculation attribute was calculated during execution.
claims 9 (Similarly claim 16) identify triggered conditional expressions which include conditional expressions from the dynamic functions that were triggered during the second execution, wherein the triggered conditional expressions are included in the execution path; and
determine and display how the triggered conditional expressions are calculated during the second execution.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 a computer, a memory, a computing device, and a user interface.
Claim 8 a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, a memory, a computing device, and a user interface.
Claim 15 a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, a processor, a memory, a computing device, and a user interface.
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, a processor, a memory, a computing device, and a user interface. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for determining how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process by different calculation expressions and conditional expressions and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determine how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process by different calculation expressions and conditional expressions. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of the independent claims, include a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, a processor, a memory, a computing device, and a user interface. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed for determining how an error code in a flight or vehicle test system was reached, how a tax preparation software arrived at an unexpected result given a user provided data value, how accounting software data discrepancies originated or were progressed through a global and complex calculation setup, how an insurance quote was generated and whether the data values used and functions processed is stale, and how an employee's salary, compensation, or benefits were calculated in an organization's compensation system, or other desired process by different calculation expressions and conditional expressions.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
The closest prior art of record are Kulkarni et al. US 2024/0231891: Automatic workflow generation and optimization, Hayden et al. US 2010/0198634: Dynamic calculations in an employee compensation system, Stattelmann, Stefan, Manuel Oriol, and Thomas Gamer. "Execution time analysis for industrial control applications." arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.0847 (2014), Nelson CA 3017085: Data modelling and flow engine for building automated flows within a cloud based developmental platform. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “wherein one or more of the dynamic functions have at least one or more calculation expressions and one or more conditional expressions, the calculation expressions and the conditional expressions being dependent on one or more of the plurality of calculation attributes from other dynamic functions; for a first set of input values, execute a first execution of the executable code including the plurality of dynamic functions to generate a first final result, wherein the plurality of calculation attributes have a first set of calculation attribute values during run-time; … generate a second final result in a second execution after a change is made to a selected calculation attribute value or to one or more of the dynamic functions; during the second execution in real-time, track the plurality of dynamic functions that are executed for generating the second final result and determine an execution path during the second execution; determine, from the functions that were executed, execution state changes between the first execution and the second execution including how one or more calculation expressions are calculated during the second execution, and identify a second set of calculation attribute values of the calculated expressions that occurred during the second execution;”. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is not apply because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stattelmann, Stefan, Manuel Oriol, and Thomas Gamer. "Execution time analysis for industrial control applications." arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.0847 (2014).
Chabot, Martial, Kévin Mazet, and Laurence Pierre. "Automatic and configurable instrumentation of C programs with temporal assertion checkers." 2015 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign (MEMOCODE). IEEE, 2015.
Fu, Menglin, et al. "A critical-path-coverage-based vulnerability detection method for smart contracts." IEEE Access 7 (2019): 147327-147344.
Nelson CA 3017085: Data modelling and flow engine for building automated flows within a cloud based developmental platform.
Kulkarni et al. US 2024/0231891: Automatic workflow generation and optimization.
Hadar et al. US 2022/0308939: Estimating and improving residual carbon debt in cloud-based applications.
Lavoie US 2022/0066765: Systems and methods for executing dynamic code in a software container.
Chavan et al. US 10,372,706: Tracking and maintaining expression statistics across database queries.
Bajic et al. US 2019/0050224: Processing core with metadata actuated conditional graph execution.
Joshi et al. US 2017/0316387: Automation of workflow events.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624