DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are currently pending in application 18/389,383.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-23 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
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 1-12 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 13-22 are directed toward a process (method). Claims 23 are directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-23 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 13 and 23 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of monitoring user interactions.
Regarding independent claims 1, 13 and 23, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at one or more processors, a defined set of one or more metric definitions for monitoring events associated with user interaction;
detecting, with the one or more processors, events that satisfy the one or more metric definitions;
assigning, with the one or more processors, a unique identifier to each event that satisfies the one or more metric definitions;
determining, with the one or more processors for a first number of events, whether the assigned unique identifier is duplicative of any other identifiers in a hash set;
determining, with the one or more processors, when a second number of events is received, wherein the second number exceeds a threshold; and
determining, with the one or more processors for the second number of events, whether the assigned unique identifier is duplicative of any other identifiers in a probabilistic data structure.
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 13 and 23 are directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)).
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-22 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1, 13 and 23 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1, 13 and 23.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-23 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, a “computer”, computer-based “memory”, a “processor”, a “hash set”, a “probabilistic data structure”, a “ scalable bloom filter”, a “hash functions”, a “web site”, a “web application”, a “web service”, a web “Application Programing Interface (API)”, a “mobile application”, and a computer-based “program”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
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. 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. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 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 2-12 and 14-22 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. 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 1-23 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, a “computer”, computer-based “memory”, a “processor”, a “hash set”, a “probabilistic data structure”, a “ scalable bloom filter”, a “hash functions”, a “web site”, a “web application”, a “web service”, a web “Application Programing Interface (API)”, a “mobile application”, and a computer-based “program”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-22 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 13 and 23 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 13 and 23; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-23 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jain et al. (US 2023/0221864 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 13, and 23, Jain discloses a system (computer-implemented method) (non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors for performing a method), comprising: memory; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to (See at least Figs.1-2, Para 0015, Para 0021-0025, Para 0121-0124, and Claims 1, 10, and 19):
receive a defined set of one or more metric definitions for monitoring events associated with user interaction (See at least Para 0021-0024, 0031, 0045, 0053-0054, Defined policies);
detect events that satisfy the one or more metric definitions (See at least Para 0021-0024, and Para 0053-0055);
assign a unique identifier to each event that satisfies the one or more metric definitions (See at least Para 0003-0005, and Para 0015);
determine, for a first number of events, whether the assigned unique identifier is duplicative of any other identifiers in a hash set (See at least Para 0053-0055, Para 0066-0067, and Para 0081);
determine when a second number of events is received, wherein the second number exceeds a threshold; and determine, for the second number of events, whether the assigned unique identifier is duplicative of any other identifiers in a probabilistic data structure (See at least Para 0053-0055, Para 0068-0069, and Para 0082).
As per Claims 2 and 14, Jain discloses wherein the probabilistic data structure comprises a scalable bloom filter based on one or more hash functions (See at least Para 0026-0031, Para 0068-0069, and Para 0082).
As per Claims 3, Jain discloses wherein the probabilistic data structure is initialized to a size to accommodate a third number of unique identifiers, and resized when a fourth number of unique identifiers is received (See at least Para 0098-0105).
As per Claims 4 and 15, Jain discloses wherein detecting the events that satisfy the one or more metric definitions comprises filtering the events to retain mutable events and omit non-mutable events, and grouping the filtered mutable events into a specific stream, wherein the specific stream is read by a first reducer having access to the defined set of one or more metric definitions and processed to produce an aggregation request in an aggregation stream (See at least Para 0021-0025, Para 0054-0055, and Para 0063).
As per Claims 5-6 and 16, Jain discloses wherein the aggregation stream is partitioned by metric definition and timestamp, and wherein the aggregation request is received by a second reducer, wherein for each partition the second reducer determines whether the aggregation request was already received, and aggregates the aggregation request into a bucket if it was not already received (See at least Para 0033-0041, Para 0074, Para 0080-0086, and Para 0100-0107).
As per Claims 7 (6) and 17 (16), Jain discloses wherein determining, for the first number of events, whether the assigned unique identifier is duplicative of any other identifiers in the hash set comprises maintaining the hash set of unique identifiers in the bucket (See at least Para 0033-0041, Para 0074, Para 0080-0086, and Para 0100-0107).
As per Claims 8 (7) and 18 (17), Jain discloses wherein determining when the second number of events is reached comprises determining when the hash set of unique identifiers includes the second number of identifiers (See at least Para 0033-0041, Para 0074, Para 0080-0086, and Para 0100-0107).
As per Claims 9 (8) and 19 (18), Jain discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to add the unique identifiers from the hash set into the probabilistic data structure when the hash set includes the second number of unique identifiers (See at least Para 0033-0041, Para 0074, Para 0080-0086, and Para 0100-0107).
As per Claims 10 and 20, Jain discloses wherein the user interaction comprises communication between a user device and at least one of a web site, web application, web service, web Application Programing Interface (API), mobile application, or program (See at least Para 0044).
As per Claims 11 and 21, Jain discloses wherein a first event associated with a first set of data, and a second event associated with the first set of data, will produce the same unique identifier if the first event and the second event satisfy the same metric definition (See at least Para 0023-0025, Para 0045-0047, and Para 0099-0101).
As per Claims 12 and 22, Jain discloses wherein a single event meeting multiple different metric definitions is deduplicated using a first memory for the first metric definition and a second memory for the second metric definition (See at least Para 0023-0025, Para 0045-0047, and Para 0099-0101).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
February 11, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629