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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 November 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 27 November 2025. Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16, and 19 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16, and 19 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly the arguments at page 9 of Applicant’s arguments and remarks regarding the more detailed recitation of the “second compilation” process, which comprises searching the pre-existing process map and inserting a new process path to update the process map. Examiner has analyzed amended claim 1, and similarly claims 6, 9, 11, 16, and 19, in view of the prior art of record and an updated prior art search and finds that not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. As a result, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts: (1) amended claim 1 is directed to a “data-driven data management system” that is a technical solution to the technical problem of updating business logic using a two-stage compilation mechanism in the field of software architecture and not to a judicial exception because the process improves the computer’s ability to structure and modularize complex data, which is a specific improvement to the data management architecture itself; (2) Like the self-referential table in Enfish, the claimed two-stage compilation architecture provides a specific improvement to how a computer system manages and evolves its data processing logic; (3) claim 1 recites an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception by providing an inventive concept in the ordered combination of its elements in a manner that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity; (4) amended claim 1 is analogous to the eligible claim in Example 3 (Digital Processing) because it is not a generic data conversion but steps to dynamically reconfigure a software system logic in a manner that improves the technology of data management systems by enhancing their scalability and maintainability that goes beyond the mere concept of simply retrieving and combining data; and (5) the claimed “second compilation” is consistent with the principles found in Example 40 such that the improved data management system is applied to control the execution of a specific business function in a manner that produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result analogous to Diamond v. Diehr and amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments are more specific than the recited claim language. Amended claim 1 recited steps for processing purchase requisition data input by a user (see Spec. at [para. 0018]) according to a data processing rule (see Spec. at [para. 0020]) for dispatching (assigning a task to a human per Spec. at [0024]), form filling a work order, displaying reminder information, and updating data when detected data or parameter meets a specific condition (see Spec. at [para. 0023]), associations and rules. The recited limitations are directed to processing known data to generate an output based on data associations and business rules, and to commercial interactions related to purchase order requisition and business transactions that fall within the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity/fundamental economic practices groupings of abstract ideas.
As the court expressly recognized in Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1 as a whole, unlike Enfish, merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Performing the data processing steps based on pre-programmed business rules (logic) using the claimed additional elements of a processor coupled to a storage device and an application program interface for receiving, processing, and displaying data amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and displaying data using generic computer components. This is unlike the claim elements of Example 3, in ordered combination, wherein the improved blue noise mask allows the computer to use to less memory than required for prior masks, results in faster computation time without sacrificing the quality of the resulting image as occurred in prior processes, and produces an improved digital image. The claims herein are more analogous to those of Claim 2 of Example 40 wherein the claims are directed to mere data gathering steps that automate the comparison of data without significantly more than the recited insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. All of the data processing, memory, and input-output devices, as well as their interconnections, are described at a high level of generality.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The use of a model and software code or logic to process the data are insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The complexity of the implementing software does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method. Increased speed or accuracy from generic computers is not enough. Applicant asserts that the recited steps dynamically reconfigure a software system logic in a manner that improves the technology of data management systems by enhancing their scalability and maintainability that goes beyond the mere concept of simply retrieving and combining data, but this is an intended result of the claimed limitations. The technical elements and functionality to achieve this intended result not presented in the claim language. As claimed herein, the additional limitations of data processing models, software logic, and computer processing as claimed herein do not result in computer functionality or technical/technology improvement and hence do not result in a practical application. The limitations when taken individually or as an ordered combination do not offer an inventive concept that may amount to add significantly more than the recited abstract concepts. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper, maintained, and updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data sets for output generation, without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a device and independent claim 11 recites a process for combining multiple assembly data sets into multiple process datasets. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite substantially similar limitations.
Taking independent claim 11 as representative, claim 11 recites at least the following limitations:
receiving a setting data set by a processor;
performing a first compilation on the setting data set by the processor to generate a plurality of assembly data sets, wherein performing the first compilation comprises:
analyzing a single process model and a plurality of parameter data in the setting data set, wherein the single process model and the plurality of parameter data correspond to a single business logic; and
generating the plurality of assembly data sets by mapping different parameter data of the plurality of parameter data to a target assembly, an activity assembly, a verification assembly, and a behavior assembly, respectively; and
performing a second compilation on the plurality of assembly data sets to combine the plurality of assembly data sets into a plurality of process data sets, wherein the plurality of process data sets form a process map, and wherein performing the second compilation comprises:
searching the process map by the processor according to targets in the plurality of assembly data sets to obtain a process path within the process map; and
inserting a new process path corresponding to the plurality of assembly data sets into the obtained process path to update the process map, thereby generating a plurality of new process data sets;
executing, by the processor, at least one of the plurality of new process data sets comprised in the updated process map, as a task logic, to perform a specific business function, wherein the plurality of assembly data sets comprise a target assembly, a verification assembly, and a behavior assembly, wherein the target assembly is related to a target instance in the setting data set, wherein the verification assembly is related to a comparison setting between standard data and data, wherein the behavior assembly is related to a setting of a state and a corresponding processing behavior.
Under Step 1, independent claims 1 and 11 recite at least one step or act, including receiving a setting data set. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of claim 11 for receiving a setting data set; performing a first compilation on the setting data set; analyzing a single process model and a plurality of parameter data; generating the plurality of assembly data sets by mapping different parameter data; performing a second compilation on the plurality of assembly data sets to combine the plurality of assembly data sets into a plurality of process data sets; searching the process map according to targets in the plurality of assembly data sets; inserting a new process path corresponding to the plurality of assembly data sets into the obtained process path to update the process map; executing at least one of the plurality of new process data sets comprised in the updated process map, as a task logic, as drafted, illustrate a process that performs steps of collecting information, analyzing/identifying information based on business rules, and outputting the results of business process and business relation information. The recited limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (gathering, analyzing/ identifying, outputting data). The steps could be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The claims are directed to receiving business process data input, applying business logic rules, and making workflow recommendations to simplify the user decision making process (see at least Applicant’s specification at [para. 0023-0024]). The recited steps for determining a workflow that complies with business rules could be performed mentally. Further, the claimed receiving steps are broadly recited to include receiving input from a user, and amounts to extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering for later data processing steps. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claimed data management limitations also fall within certain methods of organizing human activity because the assignment model is a setting value of assigning a task to a specific personnel. See Specification at [para. 0024]). Amended claim 11 recites steps for processing purchase requisition data input by a user (see Spec. at [para. 0018]) according to a data processing rule (see Spec. at [para. 0020]) for dispatching (assigning a task to a human per Spec. at [0024]), form filling a work order, displaying reminder information, and updating data when detected data or parameter meets a specific condition (see Spec. at [para. 0023]), associations and rules). The recited limitations are directed to processing known data to generate an output based on data associations and business rules, and to commercial interactions related to purchase order requisition and business transactions that fall within the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity/fundamental economic practices groupings of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception of claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite a processor, application program interface (API), and storage device for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0016-0017] states: “the processor 110 of the business data processing system 100 may include, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), or other programmable general purpose or special purpose microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP), application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), programmable logic device (PLD), other similar processing circuits or a combination of these devices.” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim limitations are directed to applying business logic rules upon the occurrence of an event or pre-programmed determination, and not to a technological improvement. The complexity of the implementing software does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method. Increased speed or accuracy from generic computers is not enough. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are a general link to computer processing, API and load balancing technology.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor for data analysis, comparison, and output, API for receiving data input and displaying data to a user, and storage device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, and 19-20 include the abstract idea of the independent claims. The limitations of the dependent claims merely narrow the mental process of gathering, identifying, and analyzing business process information by describing how the data is processed through programmed modules and data association models for business decision making purposes based on business rules. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly independent claim 1 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 11 above. Therefore claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but the claims would be allowable if the aforementioned rejections are overcome.
Examiner analyzed amended claim 11, and similarly claim 1, in view of the prior art of record and an updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. Particularly, the more detailed recitation of the “second compilation” process, which comprises searching the pre-existing process map and inserting a new process path to update the process map. Moreover since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims 1 and 11 can only be found as recited in Applicant’s specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all the claim elements would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of the prior art of record and any of the additional references would be improper to teach the claimed invention. As a result, claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 are eligible over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Hamze (US 2021/0303118) - the interactive program can be a project management program, where, using one or more Main Tasks, one or more users or IoT devices can collaborate to complete a project. To begin the project, a resource can start with a planning Main Task supported by IM, which will assist by comparing similar current and historic projects to confirm budgeted allocations are viable and optimized. The dynamic modeling system can use the contextual dynamic data to determine how to combine the data corresponding to respective different task types into a single data object, e.g., in a sequence of data items within the data object corresponding to the sequence in which the tasks were completed.
Silverstein et al. (US 2024/0330646) – a method includes: training a machine learning (ML) predictive model with workflow event data received from multiple remote computing devices, thereby outputting a knowledge corpus of software recommendations to complete tasks in workflow events; identifying in real-time actions of interest within software activity data generated during a workflow event of a user based on a recommendation profile of the user; determining, from the knowledge corpus of software recommendations, one or more software recommendations for injecting one or more tasks into the workflow based on the actions of interest and the recommendation profile of the user; sending a recommendation notification to the user during the workflow event; and updating the ML predictive model based on user feedback responsive to the recommendation notification. Embodiments of the invention identify areas where users are experiencing difficulty in their workflow, and create recommendations based on efficiencies determined in the workflow and activities of others. In this way, users may be made aware of new features and tools that their colleagues or peers are using to achieve a more optimal result (e.g., a more accurate result, or faster output time). Implementations of the invention provide a technical solution to improve the clock speed for users while creating a communal collaboration resulting in faster time to resolution of workflow roadblocks being faced internally on a day-to-day basis.
Breiter et al. (US 2014/0058788) - the first and/or second mappings are annotated by a user, e.g., a business process engineer, by means of a graphical tool, i.e., a software tool providing a graphical user interface which enables a user to specify the mappings. The user annotates a context data object with the first and/or second mapping. The annotated data objects are part of the process definition which is deployed into the RE business process engine after having finished annotating. During deployment, a pre-processing and/or a post-processing task are created in dependence on the presence and content of said first and/or second mapping (which determine the presence and content of the respective copies of the mappings) and are inserted into the business process definition of the business process. As a consequence, said first and/or second mappings provide at execution time of the standard business process engine all information necessary for exchanging payload data having been stored to the payload data structure of the annotated context data object with the predefined data structure instance.
Goda et al. (US 2015/0113535) - The supervisor process of each computation node generates a process based on an instruction from the administer supervisor process. The process thus generated generates a task based on an instruction from the administer supervisor process. Each computation node executes the process and the task thus generated to execute the map operation and the like in the application, and thus executes the job. The administer supervisor process may be any one of a plurality of supervisor processes of a plurality of computation nodes. The program code may be a command generated through compiling and the like and executable by the processor, may be a command that can be converted into a command executable by the processor through an execution processing system, may be a declaration capable of generating a command executable by the processor through the execution processing system, or a combination of these.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623