DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 11/30/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 8/3/2026.
a. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-20 are amended
Overall, claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-8 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 9-14 are directed to computer implemented method, and claims 15-20 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] receiving, by a processor, a plurality of datasets from a plurality of database sources using a computer, the plurality of datasets including a plurality of characteristics;
[B] generating, by a processor, a plurality of predefined zones,
[C] wherein each of the one or more predefined zones includes one or more policies associated with a processing pipeline, wherein the plurality of predefined zones comprise: (i) a transient zone configured for storing the plurality of datasets, (ii) a raw zone configured for storing raw data generated from the plurality of datasets after the plurality of datasets have been ingested and organized according to the processing pipeline, (iii) a trusted zone configured for storing standardized data generated from the raw data after the raw data has been ingested and organized according to the processing pipeline and the one or more policies, and (iv) a refined zone configured for storing business-specific data generated from the standardized data according to the processing pipeline after the standardized data has been organized by one or more lines of business;
[D] storing, by a processor, the plurality of datasets in the transient zone
[E] training, by the processor via an iterative training and testing loop, a machine learning program utilizing at least one neural network to generate a trained predictive model, a training dataset utilized during the training of the machine learning program comprising the one or more policies and the plurality of predefined zones, the training comprising:
[F] inserting a target variable value into the iterative training and testing loop; and
[G] iteratively predicting the target variable via the iterative training and testing loop,
[H] wherein iterative predictions of the target variable comprise modifying weights and calculations applied to the training dataset during subsequent prediction iterations to improve predictability of the target variable;
[I] predicting, by the trained predictive model, at least one common policy for a first dataset and a second dataset from the plurality of datasets;
[J] predicting, by the trained predictive model for the first dataset, a dataset zone based on the at least one common policy;
[K] generating, by the processor based on the predicted dataset zone for the first dataset, a predicted dataset zone not included in the plurality of predefined zones; and
[L] storing, by the processor, the first dataset in the predicted zone
Independent claim 1 recites: generating a plurality of predefined zones and training a machine learning program ([B], [E]), inserting a target variable value and predicting the target variable ([F], [G]), predicting a common policy and predicting a dataset zone ([J], [K]), generating a predicted dataset zone and storing the dataset ([K], [L]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing following rules or instructions. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a computer,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein each of the one or more predefined zones includes one or more policies associated with a processing pipeline,” “wherein the plurality of predefined zones comprise: (i) a transient zone configured for storing the plurality of datasets, (ii) a raw zone configured for storing raw data generated from the plurality of datasets after the plurality of datasets have been ingested and organized according to the processing pipeline, (iii) a trusted zone configured for storing standardized data generated from the raw data after the raw data has been ingested and organized according to the processing pipeline and the one or more policies, and (iv) a refined zone configured for storing business-specific data generated from the standardized data according to the processing pipeline after the standardized data has been organized by one or more lines of business;”; “wherein iterative predictions of the target variable comprise modifying weights and calculations applied to the training dataset during subsequent prediction iterations in order to improve predictability of the target variable;” as applied to the predefined zones, and iterative predcitions based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving and storing a plurality of dataset ([B], [D]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1 are deemed ineligible.
Independent claim 9, (which is representative of independent claims 15) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 9 (which is representative of independent claims 15) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] receiving a plurality of datasets from a plurality of sources using a computer, the datasets including a plurality of characteristics;
[B] generating, by the processor, a plurality of predefined zones in a storage device,
[C] wherein each of the one or more predefined zones includes one or more policies associated with a processing pipeline, the plurality of predefined zones comprising: (i) a transient zone configured for storing the plurality of datasets, (ii) a raw zone, configured for storing raw data generated from the plurality of datasets data after the plurality of datasets have been ingested and organized, (iii) trusted zone, configured for storing standardized data generated from the raw data after the raw data has been ingested and organized according to the processing pipeline, and (iv) a refined zone configured for storing business-specific data generated from the standardized data according to the processing pipeline after the standardized data has been organized by one or more lines of business;
[D] storing, by the processor, the plurality of datasets in the transient zone
[E] training, via an iterative training and testing loop, a machine learning program utilizing at least one neural network to generate a trained training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance model, a training dataset utilized during the training of the machine learning program comprising the one or more policies and plurality of zones, the training comprising:
[F] inserting a target variable value into the iterative training and testing loop; and
[G] iteratively training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance the target variable via the iterative training and testing loop,
[H] wherein iterative training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance of the target variable comprise modifying weights and calculations applied to the training dataset during subsequent training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance iterations in order to improve training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance of the target variable;
[I] predicting, by the trained predictive model, a data privacy policy for a first dataset from the plurality of datasets;
[J] predicting, by the trained predictive model, a suitable zone for the first dataset
based on the predicted data privacy policy; and
[K] storing, by the processor, the first dataset in the predicted zone.
Independent claim 9 (which is representative of independent claims 15) recites: generating a plurality of predefined zones and storing a plurality of dataset ([B], [D]); training a machine learning program ([E]); inserting a target variable and iteratively training ([F], [G]); predicting a data privacy policy and a suitable zone ([I], [J]) and storing the dataset ([K]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing following rules or instructions. These fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 9 (which is representative of independent claims 15) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the additional elements “wherein each of the one or more predefined zones includes one or more policies associated with a processing pipeline, the plurality of predefined zones comprising: (i) a transient zone configured for storing the plurality of datasets, (ii) a raw zone, configured for storing raw data generated from the plurality of datasets data after the plurality of datasets have been ingested and organized, (iii) trusted zone, configured for storing standardized data generated from the raw data after the raw data has been ingested and organized according to the processing pipeline, and (iv) a refined zone configured for storing business-specific data generated from the standardized data according to the processing pipeline after the standardized data has been organized by one or more lines of business;”, “wherein the transient zone is configured for storing the sourced data from the plurality of datasets”, “wherein iterative training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance of the target variable comprise modifying weights and calculations applied to the training dataset during subsequent training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance iterations in order to improve training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance of the target variable” as applied to the predefined zones, the transient zone, and the iterative training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: storing datasets ([B]), generating a first zone ([C]), generating a second zone ([D]), generating a third zone ([E]), generating a fourth zone ([F]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 9, (which is representative of independent claims 15), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 9 (which is representative of claims independent 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 9, 15 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 10, which is representative of dependent claims 16, recites:
wherein the suitable zone comprises secure zone, wherein the secure zone is configured for
storing one or more datasets that contain at least one of personal information, personally identifiable information, sensitive information, and protected personal information.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claim 10 (which is representative of dependent claims 16) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 11, which is representative of dependent claims 17, recites:
wherein the suitable zone comprises an unsecure zone, wherein the unsecure zone is configured for
storing basic datasets that contain public information.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claim 11 (which is representative of dependent claims 17) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 13, which is representative of dependent claims 4-6, 19, recites:
wherein the suitable zone comprises a fifth zone of the one or more zones comprises an analytical workspace zone, wherein the analytical workspace zone is configured for
storing data that can be validated without altering the data in any of the other one or more zones, and
wherein the analytical workspace zone comprises an experimental zone for ad-hoc use cases.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claim 13 (which is representative of dependent claims 4-6, 19) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 12, 14, which are representative of dependent claims 18, 20, respectively, recite:
wherein the one or more policies comprise corporate governance policies.
wherein the one or more policies comprises role-based access control policies.
wherein the predicted dataset zone comprises an analytical workspace zone.
wherein the analytical workspace zone is configured for storing the first dataset such that it can be validated without altering the first dataset in any of the predefined zones.
wherein the analytical workspace zone comprises an experimental zone for ad-hoc use cases.
wherein the representation displayed via the graphical user interface comprises a governance graph.
wherein an authorized user can alter, delete, or change one or more policies associated with the training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance dataset zone.
wherein the suitable zone comprises an uncategorized zone.
wherein an authorized user defines dataset characteristics and zone rules for the suitable zone.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the policies; the displayed representation; the analytical workspace; the representation; the authorized user options; the suitable zone – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (training procedure based on rules/instructions for optimizing data governance), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 12, 14, which are representative of dependent claims 18, 20, are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220197986 A1 Zizi; Martin et al. ELECTRONIC DEVICE RELATED TO USER IDENTIFICATION, AUTHENTICATION, LIVELINESS, ENCRYPTION USING BIOMETRICS TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS FOR OPERATION THEREOF In one embodiment, a method for authenticating a user with an electronic device is disclosed. The method incudes receiving digital sensor data from a motion sensor over a signal acquisition time period; deleting a beginning portion of the digital sensor data prior to the signal acquisition time period; suppressing signal components in the data associated with voluntary movement of the user; signal processing the suppressed digital sensor data to extract signal features representing neuro muscular tone of the user; tabulating the extracted signal features over periods of time into a feature vector table; executing a predictive model with the feature vector table; generating a numerical degree of matching level based on the feature vector table and the user parameter set; and making a determination to either authorize the user or not based on the numerical degree of matching level. The predictive model is trained by a user parameter set.
US 20140103632 A1 Camus; Michel et al. SECURITY THREAD - An anti-counterfeiting security thread for incorporation into documents and banknotes. The security thread has at least two zones located respectively on either side of a separation line extending longitudinally along the thread. Two optically variable security elements having different appearances are disposed in the first zone and second zones of the security thread. The optically variable elements are arranged with respect to the separation line so that each of the two optically variable elements has a first perceived appearance from a first direction of observation and a second perceived appearance from a second direction of observation, wherein the first and the second perceived appearances are different.
US 20210124926 A1 Krishnamurthy; Sailesh Bharathwaaj et al. DETECTING SHELF INTERACTIONS USING A SENSOR ARRAY An object tracking system includes a sensor and a tracking system. The sensor is configured to capture a frame of at least a portion of a rack within a global plane for a space. The tracking system is configured to receive the frame, to detect an object within a zone of the frame, and to determine a pixel location for the object. The tracking system is further configured to identify a zone and a shelf of the rack based on the pixel location, to identify an item based on the identified zone and the identified shelf of the rack, and to add the identified item to a digital cart associated with a person.
US 20180210936 A1 Reynolds; Shad William et al. INTERACTIVE INTERFACES TO PRESENT DATA ARRANGEMENT OVERVIEWS AND SUMMARIZED DATASET ATTRIBUTES FOR COLLABORATIVE DATASETS Various embodiments relate generally to data science and data analysis, and computer software and systems, to provide an interface between repositories of disparate datasets and computing machine-based entities that seek access to the datasets, and, more specifically, to a computing and data storage platform that facilitates consolidation of one or more datasets, whereby user interfaces may be implemented as computerized tools for presenting summarization of dataset attributes to facilitate discovery, formation, and analysis of interrelated collaborative datasets. In some examples, a method may include receiving data resulting from insight calculations. Insight calculations may be based on a derived dataset attribute. Also, the method may include presenting a data arrangement overview summarizing the data attributes as an aggregation of data attributes in a portion of the user interface. The data arrangement overview may include an interactive display of a distribution associated with a collaborative atomized dataset.
US 20180349653 A1 Al-kadi; Ghiath et al. MOBILE DEVICE AND READER FOR FACILITATING A TRANSACTION According to a first aspect of the present disclosure, a mobile device for facilitating a transaction is provided, comprising: a secure element configured to contain transaction-related data; an ultra-wideband radio unit operatively coupled to the secure element and configured to carry out ultra-wideband radio communication with an external reader; wherein the ultra-wideband radio unit is configured to operate as an interface between the secure element and said external reader. According to a second aspect of the present disclosure, a reader for facilitating a transaction is provided, comprising: an ultra-wideband communication and tracking unit configured to communicate with at least one external mobile device having an ultra-wideband radio unit and to track said mobile device; a processing unit operatively coupled to the ultra-wideband communication and tracking unit, said processing unit being configured to process at least one transaction. According to a third aspect of the present disclosure, a corresponding method for facilitating a transaction using a reader is conceived. According to a fourth aspect of the present disclosure, a corresponding computer program is provided.
US 20180210940 A1 SHMUELI; Oded et al. PROCESSING QUERY TO GRAPH DATABASE A method of processing a query to a graph database using processors. The method comprises providing threads to be executed on processors, each the thread is associated with one of a plurality of unique thread identifiers, providing a graph database having a plurality of graph database nodes and a plurality of graph database edges, each the graph database edge represents a relationship between two of the plurality of graph database nodes, receiving a query tree that defines a tree comprising plurality of query nodes connected by a plurality of query tree edges, and searching at least part of the graph database for a match with the query tree, wherein the searching is executed by the processors, and wherein each processor searches one of a plurality of sub-graphs of the graph database, each the sub-graph is defined by one of the plurality of thread identifiers.
US 20140228096 A1 Detlefsen; David E. et al. GAMING SYSTEM WITH REMOTE CONTROLLER HAVING LOCATION-BASED VARIABLE FUNCTIONALITY A gaming system includes a handheld device coupled to a fixed structure. The handheld device includes a sensor configured to detect inputs. The handheld device is positionable in a base predefined zone and a first predefined zone. The base predefined zone is defined as a base volumetric space and the first predefined zone is defined as a first volumetric space. A memory device stores instructions that, when executed, by at least one of one or more processors of the gaming system, cause the gaming system to (i) detect a first input from the handheld device, (ii) perform a first function in response to the first input being detected in the base predefined zone, and (iii) perform a second function in response to the first input being detected in the first predefined zone, the second function being different from the first function.
US 20210113121 A1 Diab; Mohamed K. et al. NON-INVASIVE MEDICAL MONITORING DEVICE FOR BLOOD ANALYTE MEASUREMENTS Systems, methods, and apparatuses for enabling a plurality of non-invasive, physiological sensors to obtain physiological measurements from essentially the same, overlapping, or proximate regions of tissue of a patient are disclosed. Each of a plurality of sensors can be integrated with or attached to a multi-sensor apparatus and can be oriented such that each sensor is directed towards, or can obtain a measurement from, the same or a similar location.
US 20250225230 A1 Zizi; Martin et al. ELECTRONIC DEVICES RELATED TO PHYSIOLOGICAL CERTIFICATE USING BIOMETRICS TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS FOR OPERATION THEREOF A digital physiological certificate (P-cert) for securing data is disclosed. The certificate comprises a digital file including an identity-based chain of trust of an owner; and a physiological based chain of trust of the owner. The physiological based chain of trust includes an owner's name; an owner's physiological based public key; a publisher's name of the bioauthentication; and a publisher's signature. Other embodiments using the P-Cert are disclosed.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the former.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations of the amended independent claims do not recite "certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action has determined that the independent claim limitations of the instant application fall under performance of limitations expressing following rules or instructions, a subset of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claims do not recite commercial interactions, social activities, or managing relationships between people”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “These are technical operations of a computing system, not organized human activity.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claims are analogous to claims found eligible in the USPTO's July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence. In Examples 47-49 accompanying that guidance …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not proper practice to go and find a particular Example from the Office published material and use the specific arguments from that Example to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter claimed in that particular Example, which in the instant situation it does not. The Office periodically publishes Examples with detailed analyses only to serve as rational and argumentation models to determine eligibility. Each application has to be considered on its own merits. Examples provided by the Office are nothing more than the name suggests: EXAMPLES, that are to be considered or not, as they are neither laws, nor rules, nor regulations.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applying the revised standards to amended claims 1, 9, and 15, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite, per se, an abstract idea and are, therefore, patent eligible under Prong One of Step 2A.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “First Prong of MP EP § 2106. 04( d) (I): The Specification Describes Improvements Apparent to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The amended claims include the specific components and steps that provide the improvements disclosed in the Specification.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claimed zone-based data governance architecture with machine learning-driven policy prediction is analogous to other claims the Federal Circuit has found eligible as improvements to technology.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not proper practice to go and find a single Court decision and use the general arguments from that decision to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter of the claimed invention in the Court decision, which in the instant situation it does not. Each application has to be considered on its own merits.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Step 2B under USPTO SME Guidance: Notwithstanding the above, assuming, arguendo, that the claims as a whole are deemed directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant is not conceding, Applicant respectfully submits that upon considering the elements of the claims in combination, the claims amount to significantly more than a judicial exception since, at the very least, additional elements recited in the independent claims provide an inventive concept.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action has determined at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claims 1, 9, 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 9, 15 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments. The prior art of record does not disclose:
generating, by a processor, a plurality of predefined zones, wherein each of the one or more predefined zones includes one or more policies associated with a processing pipeline, wherein the plurality of predefined zones comprise: (i) a transient zone configured for storing the plurality of datasets, (ii) a raw zone configured for storing raw data generated from the plurality of datasets after the plurality of datasets have been ingested and organized according to the processing pipeline, (iii) a trusted zone configured for storing standardized data generated from the raw data after the raw data has been ingested and organized according to the processing pipeline and the one or more policies, and (iv) a refined zone configured for storing business-specific data generated from the standardized data according to the processing pipeline after the standardized data has been organized by one or more lines of business;
predicting, by the trained predictive model for the first dataset, a dataset zone based on the at least one common policy;
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights