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 .
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 15 are pending for examination. Claims 5, 10, and 15 are amended. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15 are not directed to an abstract idea:
[...]
Re: Step 2A: Claims are not directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Applicant Argues: In response, Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 6, and 11 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in terms of achieving improvement in the functioning of a computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., defining a structured multidimensional data architecture in which rows corresponding to dimensions and columns corresponding to service class levels which are incrementally arranged and mapped to characteristic values which are arranged incrementally. This incremental arrangement provides a hierarchical and functional relationship among data elements, thereby constraining and improving downstream computational processes.
Applicant submits that the claimed service class lookup table is an incremental structured rows and columns, transforms the lookup table from passive data into an active computational constraint mechanism, thereby reduces computation ambiguity.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes as argued i.e. defining a structured multidimensional data architecture in which rows corresponding to dimensions and columns corresponding to service class levels which are incrementally arranged and mapped to characteristic values which are arranged incrementally and the... service class lookup table is an incremental structured rows and columns are noted to be part of the abstract idea, thus, the purported improvement is to the abstract idea itself. These features fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations. Further, such features are noted to encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner respectfully notes improving downstream computation processes and/or reduces computation ambiguity are merely outcomes of the abstract idea. Thus, they noted to be part of the abstract idea. The examiner further notes if such abstract idea is applied to a generic computing environment (i.e., one or more hardware processors) it would be noted to be merely invoking the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., computation) and not an improvement in the functioning of a computer. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 6, and 11 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in terms of achieving improvement in the functioning of a computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., defining dimension-attribute table in structured representation of system attributes aligned to dimensions in columns, whereas rows with mappings of dimensions to key attributes, and cells corresponds to sets of key attributes arranged incrementally. The claimed table defines multidimensional mapping between dimensions and incrementally arranged key attributes that impose functional constraints on ETI score computation. This arrangement establishes a specific computational framework wherein attribute selection and application are governed by dimension-specific and hierarchical rules.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes as argued i.e. defining dimension-attribute table in structured representation of system attributes aligned to dimensions in columns, whereas rows with mappings of dimensions to key attributes, and cells corresponds to sets of key attributes arranged incrementally. ... table defines multidimensional mapping between dimensions and incrementally arranged key attributes that impose functional constraints on ETI score computation and establishes a specific computational framework wherein attribute selection and application are governed by dimension-specific and hierarchical rules are noted to be part of the abstract idea, thus, the purported improvement is to the abstract idea itself. These features fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations. Further, such features are noted to encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner respectfully notes specific computational framework wherein attribute selection and application are governed by dimension-specific and hierarchical rules are merely outcomes of the abstract idea. Thus, they noted to be part of the abstract idea. The examiner further notes if such abstract idea is applied to a generic computing environment (i.e., one or more hardware processors) it would be noted to be merely invoking the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., computation) and not an improvement in the functioning of a computer. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 6, and 11 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in terms of achieving improvement in the functioning of a computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., defines a structured computational framework that improves how a computer organizes and executes multi-dimensional system evaluation. A multidimensional matrix data structure in which rows correspond to business service models and columns correspond to incrementally arranged dimensions, and the entries represent dimension-specific scores. This structured arrangement enables efficient row-wise aggregation and imposes computational constraints that improve processing efficiency, consistency, and scalability.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes as argued i.e. defines a structured computational framework that improves how a computer organizes and executes multi-dimensional system evaluation. A multidimensional matrix data structure in which rows correspond to business service models and columns correspond to incrementally arranged dimensions, and the entries represent dimension-specific scores and enables efficient row-wise aggregation and imposes computational constraints are noted to be part of the abstract idea, thus, the purported improvement is to the abstract idea itself. These features fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations. Further, such features are noted to encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner respectfully notes enables efficient row-wise aggregation and imposes computational constraints are merely outcomes of the abstract idea. Thus, they noted to be part of the abstract idea. The examiner further notes if such abstract idea is applied to a generic computing environment (i.e., one or more hardware processors) it would be noted to be merely invoking the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., computation) and not an improvement in the functioning of a computer (i.e., improve processing efficiency, consistency, and scalability). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 6, and 11 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in terms of achieving improvement in the functioning of a computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., characterization of the EM level table as a structured multi-column data architecture in which EM score ranges, maturity levels, operational characteristics, and endurance classifications are incrementally arranged and mapped on a row-wise basis. This arrangement imposes a deterministic and hierarchical decision model that improves how the computer processes input scores to generate system-level outputs. A structured decision model embedded in a data structure that improves how a computer determines and outputs system operational states.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes as argued i.e. characterization of the EM level table as a structured multi-column data architecture in which EM score ranges, maturity levels, operational characteristics, and endurance classifications are incrementally arranged and mapped on a row-wise basis and imposes a deterministic and hierarchical decision model that improves how [to] process input scores to generate system-level outputs. are noted to be part of the abstract idea, thus, the purported improvement is to the abstract idea itself. These features fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations. Further, such features are noted to encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner respectfully notes imposes a deterministic and hierarchical decision model that improves how [to] process input scores to generate system-level outputs are merely outcomes of the abstract idea. Thus, they noted to be part of the abstract idea. The examiner further notes if such abstract idea is applied to a generic computing environment (i.e., one or more hardware processors) it would be noted to be merely invoking the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., mapping) and not an improvement in the functioning of a computer. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In response to applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., A structured decision model embedded in a data structure that improves how a computer determines and outputs system operational states) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 6, and 11 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in terms of achieving improvement in the functioning of a computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., calculating an operational endurance score for the entity, by normalization a maximum value derived from the structural configuration of the system, including the number of dimensions and the highest service class level. Furthermore, the computation is constrained within a bounded multidimensional parameter space defined by dimension-specific attributes and service class characteristics. Raw computed values are transformed into a standardized system-level metric. Further, predefined structural constraints i.e., dimensions x service class levels are utilized to generate an output tied to real operational performance of IT systems.
Applicant submits that the arrangement ensures consistent, deterministic, and comparable outputs, thereby improving how the computer performs system-level evaluation. The claimed normalization within the bounded multidimensional parameter space constitutes a system-calibrated computational improvement.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes as argued i.e. calculating an operational endurance score for the entity, by normalization a maximum value derived from the structural configuration of the system, including the number of dimensions and the highest service class level. ...the computation is constrained within a bounded multidimensional parameter space defined by dimension-specific attributes and service class characteristics. Raw computed values are transformed into a standardized system-level metric. ... predefined structural constraints i.e., dimensions x service class levels are utilized to generate an output tied to real operational performance of IT systems and the arrangement ensures consistent, deterministic, and comparable outputs and claimed normalization within the bounded multidimensional parameter space are noted to be part of the abstract idea, thus, the purported improvement is to the abstract idea itself. These features fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations. Further, such features are noted to encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner respectfully notes the arrangement ensures consistent, deterministic, and comparable outputs and normalization within the bounded multidimensional parameter space are merely outcomes of the abstract idea. Thus, they noted to be part of the abstract idea. The examiner further notes if such abstract idea is applied to a generic computing environment (i.e., one or more hardware processors) it would be noted to be merely invoking the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., calculating) and not an improvement in the functioning of a computer (i.e., improving how the computer performs system-level evaluation and/or a system-calibrated computational improvement). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 6, and 11 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in terms of achieving improvement in the functioning of a computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., identifying technology domains using a trained machine learning model based on historical entity data. Enables adaptive and data-driven mapping of business models to technology domains, reduces computational overhead by limiting relevant system components dynamically, and improves system efficiency and accuracy.
...
Therefore, Applicant believes that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13 are patent-eligible (Step 2A: No).
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes as argued i.e. identifying technology domains... based on historical data are noted to be part of the abstract idea, thus, the purported improvement is to the abstract idea itself. These features fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations. Further, such features are noted to encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner further respectfully notes use of “a trained machine learning model based on historical entity data” to “identify” is noted to be additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. This element in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Re: Step 2B: Claims recite additional element(s) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Applicant Argues: Applicant believes that the subject matter of amended claims 1, 6, and 11 achieves significantly more in terms of calculating an operational endurance score for the entity, by normalization a maximum value derived from the structural configuration of the system, including the number of dimensions and the highest service class level. Furthermore, the computation is constrained within a bounded multidimensional parameter space defined by dimension-specific attributes and service class characteristics. Raw computed values are transformed into a standardized system-level metric. Further, predefined structural constraints i.e., dimensions x service class levels are utilized to generate an output tied to real operational performance of IT systems.
Applicant submits that the arrangement ensures consistent, deterministic, and comparable outputs, thereby improving how the computer performs system-level evaluation.The claimed normalization within the bounded multidimensional parameter space constitutes a system-calibrated computational improvement.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes as argued i.e. calculating an operational endurance score for the entity, by normalization a maximum value derived from the structural configuration of the system, including the number of dimensions and the highest service class level. ...the computation is constrained within a bounded multidimensional parameter space defined by dimension-specific attributes and service class characteristics. Raw computed values are transformed into a standardized system-level metric. ... predefined structural constraints i.e., dimensions x service class levels are utilized to generate an output tied to real operational performance of IT systems and the arrangement ensures consistent, deterministic, and comparable outputs and claimed normalization within the bounded multidimensional parameter space are noted to be part of the abstract idea are noted to fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations. Further, such features are noted to encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The examiner notes the features as noted above are part of the abstract idea, thus, the purported improvement is to the abstract idea itself. The examiner respectfully notes that the additional element of use of a “hardware processor” and/or memory, and/or communication interface to “calculate” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the alleged improvement in the functioning of a computer (i.e., improving how the computer performs system-level evaluation and/or a system-calibrated computational improvement) is misplaced as these are outcomes of merely invoking the additional element (i.e., one or more hardware processors) as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., calculating). Further, there are no meaningful limitations that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Referring to Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, "the Federal Circuit mentions the improvement to the computer functionality is not defined by reference to "physical" components does not doom the claims. To hold otherwise risks resurrecting a bright-line machine-or- transformation test, cf Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010) ("The machine-or- transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible 'process. "), or creating a categorical ban on software patents, cf id. at 603 ("This Court has not indicated that the existence of these well-established exceptions gives the Judiciary carte blanche to impose other limitations that are inconsistent with the text and the statute's purpose and design."). Much of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes. In sum, the self-referential table recited in the claims on appeal is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. In other words, the Supreme Court does not faced with a situation where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts ".
In line with the Federal circuit conclusion, the claimed subject matter is directed to a specific implementation i.e., distinct lookup tables e.g., interdependent set of structured lookup tables (Tables 2-5) that collectively define a multi-layered data architecture, which stores system representations, constrains computation, performs multi-dimensional evaluation, generates deterministic system-level outputs. The service class lookup table (Table 2) establishes a hierarchical system structure, the dimension-attribute table (Table 3) imposes attribute-level constraints, the D-ETI matrix (Table 4) performs structured multi-dimensional computation, and the EM level table (Table 5) deterministically maps computed values to system operational states. The claimed subject matter defines multiple structured tables establishing row/column relationships, incremental hierarchical constraints, and inter-table dependencies. The layered architecture governs how the computer processes data end-to-end, improving efficiency, consistency, and scalability of system evaluation.
The claimed lookup tables constitute a specific data architecture that improves computer performance by enabling faster and more efficient data retrieval. By structuring data in predefined row-column relationships, the system avoids iterative processing and enables direct lookup operations, thereby reducing computational overhead and improving execution speed.
Applicant submits that, similar to the self-referential table in Enfish, the claimed tables improve the functioning of the computer itself by enhancing how data is stored, accessed, and processed.
[...]
Therefore, taking all the claim elements individually, or in combination, the claim as a whole amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea of itself (Step 2B: Yes).
Applicant requests the examiner consider the above mentioned arguments submissions on the merits. By means of the aforementioned submissions, Applicant respectfully submits that the subject matter claimed does not merely constitute an abstract idea and constitutes significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-3, 5- 8, 10-13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes that the multiple structured tables establishing row/column relationships, incremental hierarchical constraints, and inter-table dependencies... are noted to be part of the abstract idea, see previous remarks above for Step 2A.
The examiner further respectfully notes use of “via one or more processors” is noted to be additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. This element in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the alleged improvement in the functioning of a computer (i.e., how the computer processes data end-to-end, improving efficiency, consistency, and scalability of system evaluation... improves computer performance by enabling faster and more efficient data retrieval... and reducing computational overhead and improving execution speed) is misplaced as these are outcomes of merely invoking the additional element (i.e., one or more hardware processors) as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., computing/mapping/calculating). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, there are no meaningful limitations that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
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(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-15 are directed to a process, machine, and/or manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 11, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A
identifying, business, data center, third party integrations, ecommerce, manufacturing plants, and research centers,, and an entity identified prioritization (EIP) score for each business service model amongst the plurality of business service models;
identifying,
identifying,
computing, wherein the T-ETI score correspond to level of a service class associated with technology resource per dimension, wherein the dimension comprises technology alignment, business/entity's resilience, security operations (SecOps), service continuity, an adaptability, and strategic governance,
wherein to compute the T-ETI score a subset of questions including a weight factor between a value 0 and a value 1 that assigns a degree of importance and impact of each question's perspective on the IT operational endurance, is presented to the entity, and
wherein the weight factor of the value 1 is assigned to a network firewall in the security operations and the value 0 is assigned to a documentation in respect to the IT Operational endurance,
(ii) a second ETI score (D-ETI) across the one or more associated technology domains, wherein the second ETI score corresponds to a dimension specific average T-ETI score across the one or more associated technology domains, and wherein the business service model include a highest D-ETI score of 'm', represented by characteristics of the service class of a highest attainable service class level, and
(iii) a third ETI score (O-ETI) for each of the one or more relevant business service models based on the first ETI score and the second ETI score, using one or more predefined tables, wherein the third ETI score corresponds to one or more operation model specific cumulative D-ETI score (O-ETI),
wherein the D-ETI scores are summed up across previously chosen business service model including the data center, and the O-ETI score for corresponding business service model is computed/generated, upon all the D-ETI numbers are generated, and wherein the one or more predefined tables comprise a service class lookup table, a dimension-attribute table, and an ETI lookup table;
wherein the service class lookup table comprises a plurality of rows, each row is dimensions arranged incrementally, and a plurality of columns, each column is a service class level arranged incrementally, and wherein for each row of the dimensions and for each column of the service class levels are mapped to characteristic values arranged incrementally,
wherein the dimension-attribute table comprises a plurality of columns, each column is the dimensions and sets of key attributes arranged incrementally, wherein each row are mapped to the dimensions and associated key attributes arranged incrementally, wherein the key attributes define operational characteristics corresponding to each dimension, and wherein the key attributes are assigned to each dimension to constrain computation of the ETI scores,
wherein the D-ETI scores are arranged in a multidimensional table, comprises a plurality of rows, each row is the one or more relevant business service models, and a plurality of columns, each column is the dimensions arranged incrementally, and entries is the dimension-specific D-ETI scores arranged incrementally, and wherein the third ETI score (O-ETI) is computed as a row-wise aggregation across the columns corresponding to the dimensions;
computing,
mapping, objectives, wherein the EM level table comprises a plurality of columns, each column is one or more endurance maturity (EM) score ranges, one or more corresponding endurance maturity levels, one or more operational characteristics associated with each maturity level, and operational endurance classifications, arranged incrementally, wherein each row are mapped to the EM score range, the maturity level, the one or more operational characteristics, and the corresponding operational endurance classification, and wherein the maturity levels are ordered from lowest to highest; and
calculating
wherein each dimension is associated with the predefined set of key attributes and service class characteristics, constrains computation of the ETI scores within a bounded multidimensional parameter space.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations includes for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 11 includes identifying a set of entity data..., identifying one or more relevant business service models..., ...select the one or more relevant business service models, identifying one or more technology domains..., ...select the one or more associated technology domains, based on the one or more relevant business service models identified..., computing scores for the preceding data using a tables, computing scores..., mapping scores to identifying current state of operations to meet one or more business objects and a degree of confidence to perform the one or more business objectives, and calculating an endurance score, thus, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 11 falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite business relations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 11, i.e., hardware processor, memory, communication interface; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 11, identifying a set of entity data..., identifying one or more relevant business service models..., ...select the one or more relevant business service models, identifying one or more technology domains..., ...select the one or more associated technology domains, based on the one or more relevant business service models identified..., computing scores for the preceding data using a tables, computing first..., second..., third... and “endurance”... scores..., mapping scores to identifying current state of operations to meet one or more business objects and a degree of confidence to perform the one or more business objectives, and calculating an endurance score, thus, encompasses steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 11, recite i.e., hardware processor, an interface to select, memory, communication interface. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0029]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 11 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 11 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 6 and 11, i.e., hardware processor, an interface to select, memory, communication interface; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 11 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 6 and 11 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13, claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations i.e., further features related to calculating and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights