Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 02/06/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 02/06/2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For instance, claim 1 recites “plurality of data items” (line 5), “the data items” (line 6), and “data items” (line 8). It is not clear if above noted elements are the same element or different elements (e.g. data items being a subset of plurality of data items).
Appropriate amendments/remarks required for clarification.
Independent claims 13, and 20 are system and medium claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 13, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1 as noted above.
At least due dependency, claims 2-11, and 14-19 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1, and 13 as noted above
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20:
In summary, claim 20 recites “computer-readable medium”. The specification states “[0084] … computer readable media such as transitory or non-transitory storage media…”. In such embodiment, “computer-readable medium” is fairly construed as signal per se.
Thus, the recited “computer-readable medium” is not a "process", a "machine", a "manufacture", or "composition of matter", as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, comprising:
in executing a batch processing job comprising at least one task to be performed for each of a plurality of entities associated with a plurality of different security zones spanning at least one security boundary:
obtaining a plurality of data items each associated with entities of the plurality of entities, the data items to be used in performing the at least one task;
associating data items of the plurality of data items with indications of the entities of the plurality of entities associated therewith; and
while performing the at least one task, prior to mutating data based on one or more of the data items of the plurality of data items, cross-referencing the indications associated with the plurality of data items to validate ownership of the data items associated with a corresponding entity of the plurality of entities associated therewith.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method, comprising: in executing/performing a batch processing job comprising at least one task to be performed for each of a plurality of entities associated with a plurality of different security zones/level spanning at least one security boundary; receiving/obtaining via pen/paper a plurality of data items each associated with entities of the plurality of entities, the data items to be used in performing the at least one task; mentally and/or via pen/paper associating data items of the plurality of data items with indications of the entities of the plurality of entities associated therewith; and while performing the at least one task (e.g. mentally/pen paper), prior to mutating data based on one or more of the data items of the plurality of data items, mentally cross-referencing the indications associated with the plurality of data items to validate ownership of the data items associated with a corresponding entity of the plurality of entities associated therewith.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For instance,
“computer-implemented” are merely 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).
“obtaining a plurality of data items each associated with entities of the plurality of entities, the data items to be used in performing the at least one task” if considered as additional elements are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and does not sufficiently tie any limitations or combination of limitation to any improvement (if any) to the functionality of the electronic device or achieving improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). . For instance,
“computer-implemented” are merely 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).
“obtaining a plurality of data items each associated with entities of the plurality of entities, the data items to be used in performing the at least one task” if considered as additional elements are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 13, and 20 are system and medium claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 13, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11, and 14-19 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 13, and 20, and the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the cross-referencing comprises comparing the indications associated with the plurality of data items to confirm that the indications match.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: in performing the cross-referencing while repeating the method, responsive to determining that at least one of the indications does not match at least one other indication, disallowing the mutating.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, further recites further comprising initiating an error condition responsive to disallowing the mutating.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the indications identify a corresponding user or account associated with the plurality of data items to cross-reference against an entity requesting that the at least one task be performed.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the at least one task comprises reading a particular data item, mutating the particular data item, validating the corresponding indication using a plurality of related data items of the corresponding associated entity, and writing the particular data item back to a database.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/storing/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the batch processing job is executed in a distributed computing system.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the plurality of data items comprises any one or more of trigger parameters, metadata, and orchestration data.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, further recites wherein the plurality of data items comprises data generated while executing the particular task.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the at least one task comprises at least one checkpoint during execution thereof, and the method further comprises validating ownership of the data items associated with the corresponding entity at each checkpoint.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: responsive to a failure during execution of the at least one task, determining that a particular checkpoint of the at least one checkpoint has validated the ownership of the data items; and resuming the at least one task from the particular checkpoint.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: responsive to the ownership of the data items being validated, complete the at least one task by mutating the data and writing the mutated data back to a database.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/storing/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 14-19:
Claims 14-19 are system claims corresponding to method claims 2-5, and 10-11 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 14-19 are rejected under the same rational as set forth claims 2-5, and 10-11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 would be allowable if above noted rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING AUTOMATIC BATCH VALIDATION OF PROCESS DATA
DOCUMENT ID
US 20240126246 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2024-04-18
Abstract
A method and system are provided for validating process data on a process recorder/controller. The method and system involves: configuring the validation criteria of the process variables, by defining value and time tolerances with respect to an ideal performance; receiving in real-time process data, including one or more process values, for a batch process at the recorder/controller responsible for recording the process data; performing a batch validation process on the recorder/controller, the batch validation process analyzing in real-time the one or more process values to validate the batch process based on at least a batch validation criteria; and transmitting from the recorder/controller validation information including a validation result for presentation on a device to a user, and/or recording at least on the recorder/controller the validation information including at least the validation result, wherein the validation result indicates whether the batch process is conformant or non-conformant.
Systems And Methods For Tagging Real-time Financial Transactions
DOCUMENT ID
US 9818153 B1
DATE PUBLISHED
2017-11-14
Abstract
A system, method, and computer-usable medium are disclosed for the automated management of financial resources. Manufacturer item data is received and processed to parse a manufacturer item identifier and any associated product item identifiers, which are then added to a repository of budget category, manufacturer item, and purchase item data if they are not already present. Purchase item transaction data is received and processed to parse individual purchase item identifiers (IDs) and their associated purchase item data. The purchase item data corresponding to the purchase item identifier, which in turn corresponds to a manufacturer item identifier, is then associated with a default or user-defined budget category identifier. If a user decides to modify existing purchase item ID and budget category ID associations, then a purchase item ID association is selected, followed by the selection of a target budget category ID. The association between the budget category ID and purchase item ID is then modified as either one-time or default association. A budget category ID is selected and its associated budget category allowance amount, budget category expenditure amount, and budget category variance amount are displayed.
TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
DOCUMENT ID
US 20140195295 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2014-07-10
Abstract
The invention provides a system, method, and computer readable medium for facilitating the execution of one or more tasks. Each worker may be provided with an electronic device capable of determining and transmitting its geographical location (and thus the worker's geographical location) to the computer system via one or more computer networks. In one embodiment, the system allows for the tracking of each task or work-related activity performed by each worker. The system may include pre-determined workflows to assist the worker in completing a task. Workflows may include recommended solutions to problems that may be encountered given the project or task at issue. In one embodiment, one or more effectiveness metrics may be utilized in order to ascertain the effectiveness of one or more of the workflows.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTIPARTY SECURE COMPUTING PLATFORM
DOCUMENT ID
US 20210406386 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2021-12-30
Abstract
Systems, methods, and corresponding non-transitory computer readable media describe a proposed system adapted as a platform governing the loading of data in a multiparty secure computing environment. In the multiparty secure computing environment described herein, multiple parties are able to load their secure information into a data warehouse having specific secure processing adaptations that limit both access and interactions with data stored thereon.
Method And System For Controlling Access To Resources In A Multi-node System
DOCUMENT ID
US 12118116 B1
DATE PUBLISHED
2024-10-15
Abstract
Methods are disclosed for controlling access to a resource that is accessible to multiple nodes in a multi-node system or multiple processors in a multi-processor system. In operation, each node or processor receives a matching request to access the resource. Indicia of the request to access the resource is computed at each node or processor and is then compared between nodes or processors. Access to the resource is given to a node or processor when the computed indicia matches.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights