DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are amended.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 9-16 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Claims 17-20 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines.
Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9, and 17: The limitations of “determining whether a first indicator… is a non-long-tail indicator or a long-tail indicator,” “scheduling a first task… by using a first time interval,” “performing alarm calculation,” “determining whether a second indicator… is the non-long-tail indicator or the long-tail indicator,” “performing aggregation processing… to obtain aggregated data…,” “scheduling a second task… by using a second time interval…,” and “performing alarm calculation…,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can use available data to make an initial determination about indicator type, in response to that determination schedule a task in an appropriate time interval, perform alarm calculations, make a similar determination on a second indicator type, combine data together, schedule a second task, and perform further alarm calculations.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 8 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9, and 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “a first task,” “a second task,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system,” “one or more computers, “ and “one or more computer memory devices…,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 9, and 17 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9, and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of Claim 1. Specifically, each claim simply clarifies details of the various claimed elements or adds further details of the mental processes in claim 1. Claims 2-7 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Similarly, claims 10-16 and 18-20 also do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert their independent claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prior art rejections, applicant argues the following in the remarks:
a. The claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea because the application defines the operational environment as a “large-scale indicator set” involving “tens of millions of indicators” and a human mind cannot practically evaluate such a large number of indicators.
b. The alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application that solves currently existing inefficiency problems.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant:
a. While it is certainly arguable that the human mind cannot process such a large number of indicators, it is irrelevant to the claimed invention. The claims, as constructed, do not require evaluation of millions of indicators. In fact, they require evaluating two, the claimed “first indicator” and the claimed “second indicator.” The human mind is far more capable of evaluating two indicators. Thus, the rejection stands.
b. As above, even if the cited inefficiencies could be solved in a manner described in the specification, that manner remains unclaimed. There is no logical pathway to fixing such inefficiencies by only analyzing two of the millions of indicators. The alleged additional elements also do not add meaningfully to the claims. “Offline archiving” is only mentioned as being used, with no particular algorithm of explanation of how, making it amount to nothing more than the inclusion of generic computing elements, which are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the rejection stands.
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 Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights