DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to a Request for Continued Examination dated December 31, 2025. Claims, 1, 4, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Claim 1 which is illustrative of the independent claims including 16 and 20 recite:
A method comprising:
storing a total number of generative usage credits for a generative artificial intelligence (Al) solutions, wherein a generative AI solution
adding an attribute in a plurality of attributes to requests in a plurality of requests to the plurality of generative AI solutions, wherein requests for different generative AI solutions have different attributes added that identify the different generative Ai solutions used;
tracking usage data of the plurality of by an event handlerand event streaming platform using the attributes added to the requests, wherein the event handler processes the plurality of requests to provide wherein the event streaming platformreceives usage events from the event handler and stores the usage data according to the usage events with the respective attribute in usage data storage while the plurality of requests are processed by the plurality of generative AI solutions;
determining a plurality of contexts for the plurality of requests from the usage data using attributes in the plurality of attributes,
retrieving a plurality of contextual pricing models for the plurality of generative Al
applying the usage data to the plurality of contextual pricing usage credits;
applying the number of generative usage credits for generative Al solutions in the plurality of generative AI solutions to an available number of generative usage credits for usage of generative AI solutions of the plurality of generative AI solutions and
taking an action to restrict usage of a generative AI solutions in the plurality of generative AI solutions using the new available number of generative usage credits while requests to the plurality of generative AI solutionsare being processed.
The claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The invention as recited is directed to billing based on tracking and calculating varied usage and charging models with traditional cloud services (see App. Spec. paras. 0004, 0014, 0015). It applies a contextual pricing model that tracks usage of different solutions and converts it into a unified cost structure, allowing for consistent billing despite individual service pricing methodologies (See App. Spec. paras. 0015- 0016). The attributes provide additional context for the type of requests.
The next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
2A – Prong Two
Courts have found that claims directed to improving a technological field or computer itself and where the abstract concept is tied to performing a specific function might survive the Alice two-step analysis thereby preventing such claims from preempting other applications of the underlying idea (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P, 773 F.3d at 1257, 1259 – claims recited “a specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page by an outsource provider that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by websites on the Internet”).
Beyond the abstract idea of context-based billing, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a computing device, network (see App. Spec. paras. 0017-0018, 0048, 0053-0055, 0065, 0078-0079; Figs. 1, 5, 7), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
Although the claims recite:
adding an attribute in a plurality of attributes to requests in a plurality of requests to the plurality of generative AI solutions, wherein requests for different generative AI solutions have different attributes added that identify the different generative Ai solutions used;
tracking usage data of the plurality of by an event handlerand event streaming platform using the attributes added to the requests, wherein the event handler processes the plurality of requests to provide wherein the event streaming platformreceives usage events from the event handler and stores the usage data according to the usage events with the respective attribute in usage data storage while the plurality of requests are processed by the plurality of generative AI solutions;
determining a plurality of contexts for the plurality of requests from the usage data using attributes in the plurality of attributes,
retrieving a plurality of contextual pricing models for the plurality of generative Al
applying the usage data to the plurality of contextual pricing usage credits;
applying the number of generative usage credits for generative Al solutions in the plurality of generative AI solutions to an available number of generative usage credits for usage of generative AI solutions of the plurality of generative AI solutions and
taking an action to restrict usage of a generative AI solutions in the plurality of generative AI solutions using the new available number of generative usage credits while requests to the plurality of generative AI solutionsare being processed.
As recited it suggests a process similar to a feedback loop in which feedback is used to update the data fed the model. It suggests evaluating data albeit from an “events streaming platform using the attributes added to the requests…from the plurality of generative AI solutions…”,
Absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the evaluation process.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which transactions are executed and not one of a technology or technological field.
The additional elements of computer and network…” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). They merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (data processing) and thus fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea is the implementation of the steps through a computer system which are described at a high level of generality, where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike DDR where the improvement was to a computer centric problem, a specific improvement to the way computers operate as a result of their interactions with the internet, in processing the data, absent is any support for a similar improvement.
The amendments to the claims suggest different variables are factored into the calculation and the additional description of the elements used in the contextual billing model. Absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the process of determining credits with a computer.
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of contextual billing, because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements are computer device which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, claims 2-5 provide descriptive details of what types of attributes used in determining context and conditions for executing the request. These claim limitations recite steps at a high level of generality and performed in a traditional manner and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 1, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 which fall with claims 1, 10 and 16. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Independent Claim 1, which is illustrative of the independent claim 16 and 20 recite:
A method comprising:
Claim 1 which is illustrative of the independent claims including 16 and 20 recite:
A method comprising:
storing a total number of generative credits for a generative artificial intelligence (Al) solutions, wherein a generative AI solution
adding an attribute in a plurality of attributes to requests in a plurality of requests to the plurality of generative AI solutions, wherein requests for different generative AI solutions have different attributes added that identify the different generative AI solutions used;
tracking usage data of the plurality of by an event handlerand an event streaming platform using the attributes added to the requests, wherein the even handler processes the plurality ofrequests to provide responses to the plurality of requests from the plurality of generative AI solutions and [[an]] wherein the event streaming platform receives usage events from the event handler and stores the usage data according to the usage events with the respective attribute in usage data storage while the plurality of requests are processed by the plurality of generative AI solutions;
determining a plurality of contexts for the plurality of requests from the usage data using attributes
retrieving a plurality of contextual pricing models for the plurality of generative Al solutions using the plurality of contexts wherein the plurality of contextual pricing models translate a plurality of model specific charging policies to generative usage credits;
applying the usage data to the plurality of contextual pricing usage credits;
applying the number of generative usage credits for generative Al solutions in the plurality of generative AI solutions to an available number of generative usage credits for usage of generative AI solutions of the plurality of generative AI solutions; and
taking an action to restrict usage of a generative AI solutions in the plurality of generative AI solutions using the new available number of generative usage credits while requests to the plurality of generative AI solutions are being processed.
The claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The invention as claimed recites an abstract idea of determining charges for usage based on predefined criteria, a method of organizing human activity, whereby the determination of billing based on varied usage and context.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g., processor - see App. specification, p.4; Figs. 5, 7). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components (e.g., database, pricing model) for tracking and receiving data.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, these 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 - (e.g., database) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19, for example, recite additional descriptive details about the criteria or rules applied to the making the determination of usage. For example, claims 2-5 describe the attributes and additional steps and data included in the request, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computer components (e.g., database) to evaluate the submitted data based on predefined conditions.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 16 and 20 do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Listed on form PTO-892.
Jagannath, USP Pub. No. US 20170178193, Methods And Systems Of A Sponsored Mobile Data Usage Platform
Mannar, USP Pub. No. 20230090320, Systems And Methods To Leverage Unused Compute Resource For Machine Learning Tasks
Mullen et al. U.S. 20030009402, Financial Management System, And Methods And Apparatus For Use Therein – shows a financial management system wherein a real bank account is notionally sub-divided into virtual sub-accounts and transactions are effected between the virtual sub-accounts without affecting the operation of the real bank account.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571 272-8105. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights