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 the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 21 is canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-20 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite a mental process/abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor to predict errors in lineage. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The present claims mirror cases like Billing v. United States or FairWarning IP v. latric Systems where the court ruled that collecting, analyzing, and displaying data for risk or compliance purposes is an abstract idea, regardless of how complex the scoring algorithm is. Further, simply invoking “machine learning” to perform the claimed steps is often treated as a black box by the court unless the claims specify a technical improvement to the ML architecture itself. This concept is viewed as a tool used to automate a manual concept.
Further, the additional elements in the claims (by a processor and graphical user interface) do not improve any existing technology. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, ’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B ” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of identifying errors in lineage are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea and that there is no inventive concept in the present claims.
Improving accuracy of a prediction model is done by improving the ML model itself as a result of a first prediction. Preparing a dataset for an ML in order to improve accuracy is automating a business problem and does not have anything to do with a technical improvement or rooted in computer technology as argued by Applicant on page 8.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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 1-3, 6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-3, 6, and 8-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of error prediction for application integration.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method comprising during a building phase, collect historical integration data from a plurality of integration platforms managed through an integration platform as a service (iPaaS) platform, wherein the historical integration data comprise representations of a plurality of integration processes, and wherein each of the plurality of integration processes comprises at least one lineage including a sequence of steps, generate a dataset comprising representations of the lineages in the plurality of integration processes, wherein each of the representations of the lineages is associated with error information, information, wherein generating the dataset comprises flattening each of the plurality of integration processes, comprising multiple paths through the integration process, in the historical integration data, into a plurality of lineages that each consists of a single path through the integration process, and for each of the plurality of integration processes that comprises multiple paths, including a representation of each of the plurality of lineages that consists of a single path through the integration process in the dataset, and wherein each of the representations of the lineages comprises a feature vector that includes an entry for each step in the lineage and is annotated with the error information, and based on the dataset, receive a representation of a lineage as an input and produce an error prediction as an output; and during an operation phase, receive a lineage including a sequence of steps from a user via the graphical user interface, and in response to a trigger, apply the error prediction model to the received lineage to produce the error prediction”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for error prediction for application integration. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 19 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 19 and 20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-3, 6, 8-18, and 20 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for error prediction for application integration. As a result, claims 2-3, 6, 8-18, and 20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “using at least one hardware processor to:”, “train an error prediction model, via supervised learning”, “via the graphical user interface”, and “generate a graphical user interface comprising one or more inputs for constructing an integration process”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 19 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 19 further recites “A system” and claim 20 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 19 and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-3, 6, and 8-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 19, and 20. As a result, claims 2-3, 6, and 8-18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “using at least one hardware processor to:”, “train an error prediction model, via supervised learning”, “via the graphical user interface”, and “generate a graphical user interface comprising one or more inputs for constructing an integration process”. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 19 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 19 further recites “A system” and claim 20 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-3, 6, and 8-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 19, and 20. As a result, claims 2-3, 6, and 8-18 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights