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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/21/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 10 and 19 similarly recites “a method for facilitating automated data capture and management, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: detecting, by the at least one processor, an execution of at least one target application; initializing, by the at least one processor based on a result of the detecting, at least one set of instructions that is associated with the at least one target application; configuring, by the at least one processor, an operational state for the at least one target application based on the initialized at least one set of instructions; capturing, by the at least one processor via the at least one target application, user data based on the configured operational state, the user data including information that relates to at least one interaction event between a user and the at least one target application; validating, by the at least one processor using a predetermined data model, the captured user data to generate at least one validated data set for processing by an artificial intelligence that utilizes a layered structure of interconnected nodes and artificial neurons to classify the at least one validated data set; [[and]] classifying, utilizing the artificial intelligence to classify, by the at least one processor using the predetermined data model, the at least one validated data set to generate classified data within at least one structured data set; and utilizing at least one honeypot trap to isolate the captured user data when the classified data indicates that the captured user data comprises malicious traffic”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 10 and 19 of “detecting, by the at least one processor, an execution of at least one target application” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “detecting”. For example, a human may detect or determine an execution of at least one target application using some execution information or memory usage with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 10 and 19 of “configuring, by the at least one processor, an operational state for the at least one target application based on the initialized at least one set of instructions” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “configuring [determining]”. For example, a human may determine an operational state for the at least one target application based on the initialized at least one set of instructions with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 10 and 19 of “capturing, by the at least one processor via the at least one target application, user data based on the configured operational state, the user data including information that relates to at least one interaction event between a user and the at least one target application” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “capturing [selecting]”. For example, a human may select user data based on the configured operational state, the user data including information that relates to at least one interaction event between a user and the at least one target application with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 10 and 19 of “validating, by the at least one processor using a predetermined data model, the captured user data to generate at least one validated data set” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “validating”. For example, a human may validate, using a predetermined data model, the captured user data to generate at least one validated data set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 10 and 19 of “classifying, utilizing the artificial intelligence to classify, by the at least one processor using the predetermined data model, the at least one validated data set to generate classified data within at least one structured data set” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “classifying”. For example, a human may classify using the predetermined data model, the at least one validated data set to generate at least one structured data set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 1, 10 and 19 of “utilizing at least one honeypot trap to isolate the captured user data when the classified data indicates that the captured user data comprises malicious traffic” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “isolating (identifying)”. For example, a human may identify captured user data when the classified data indicates that the captured user data comprises malicious traffic using one honeypot trap with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 10 and 19 recite additional elements such as “initializing, by the at least one processor based on a result of the detecting, at least one set of instructions that is associated with the at least one target application”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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 insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 10 and 19 recite additional elements such as “for processing by an artificial intelligence that utilizes a layered structure of interconnected nodes and artificial neurons to classify the at least one validated data set”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. 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 under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claims 2, 11 and 20 of “determining, by the at least one processor, a user journey funnel that corresponds to the user based on the at least one structured data set, wherein the user journey funnel includes contextual information that is related to the at least one interaction event” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “determining”. For example, a human may determine a user journey funnel that corresponds to the user based on the at least one structured data set, wherein the user journey funnel includes contextual information that is related to the at least one interaction event with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 3 and 12 of “determining, by the at least one processor using at least one predictive model, at least one predictive output based on the at least one structured data set and the user journey funnel, wherein the at least one predictive output includes an adjustment action that alters at least one functionality of the at least one target application” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “determining”. For example, a human may determine using at least one predictive model, at least one predictive output based on the at least one structured data set and the user journey funnel, wherein the at least one predictive output includes an adjustment action that alters at least one functionality of the at least one target application with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 13 of “generating, by the at least one processor, at least one graphical element for the at least one structured data set;” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “generating [drawing]”. For example, a human may draw at least one graphical element for the at least one structured data set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4 and 13 recite additional elements such as “displaying, by the at least one processor via a graphical user interface, the generated at least one graphical element, wherein the at least one graphical element includes a visual representation of at least one from among the at least one structured data set, the user journey funnel, and the at least one predictive output”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting/displaying under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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 insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5 and 14 recite additional elements such as “the at least one predictive model includes at least one from among a large language model, a deep learning model, a neural network model, a natural language processing model, a machine learning model, a mathematical model, and a process model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. 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 under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 15 recite additional elements such as “the at least one set of instructions corresponds to a software development kit that includes a collection of software development tools in at least one installable data package, the software development kit including at least one software library”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. 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 under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 7 and 16 recite additional elements such as “the at least one set of instructions includes at least one from among a configuration parameter, a service uniform resource locator, and a listing of allowed network connections”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. 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 under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 8 and 17 recite additional elements such as “the initializing includes at least one from among a build-time initializing process when source code of the at least one target application is accessible and a runtime initializing process when the source code of the at least one target application is not accessible”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. 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 under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claims 9 and 18 of “identifying, by the at least one processor, at least one downstream application that is associated with the at least one target application” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “identifying”. For example, a human may identify at least one downstream application that is associated with the at least one target application with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 9 and 18 of “determining, by the at least one processor, at least one data format requirement for the identified at least one downstream application” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “determining”. For example, a human may determine at least one data format requirement for the identified at least one downstream application with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 9 and 18 of “formatting, by the at least one processor, the at least one structured data set based on the determined at least one data format requirement” as a drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “formatting”. For example, a human may format the at least one structured data set based on the determined at least one data format requirement with a pen and paper or in a human mind. 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, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Cazenave (US PGPub 20240106910), in view of Kim (US PGPub 20220318642), in view of Hubbard (US Patent 10410295), and further in view of Ragan (US PGPub 20060271520) failed to disclose of a method for facilitating automated data capture and management, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: detecting, by the at least one processor, an execution of at least one target application; initializing, by the at least one processor based on a result of the detecting, at least one set of instructions that is associated with the at least one target application; configuring, by the at least one processor, an operational state for the at least one target application based on the initialized at least one set of instructions; capturing, by the at least one processor via the at least one target application, user data based on the configured operational state, the user data including information that relates to at least one interaction event between a user and the at least one target application; validating, by the at least one processor using a predetermined data model, the captured user data to generate at least one validated data set; and classifying, by the at least one processor using the predetermined data model, the at least one validated data set to generate at least one structured data set, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Cazenave, Kim, Hubbard and Ragan discloses of a method for facilitating automated data capture and management, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: detecting, by the at least one processor, an execution of at least one target application; initializing, by the at least one processor based on a result of the detecting, at least one set of instructions that is associated with the at least one target application; configuring, by the at least one processor, an operational state for the at least one target application based on the initialized at least one set of instructions; capturing, by the at least one processor via the at least one target application, user data based on the configured operational state, the user data including information that relates to at least one interaction event between a user and the at least one target application; validating, by the at least one processor using a predetermined data model, the captured user data to generate at least one validated data set; and classifying, by the at least one processor using the predetermined data model, the at least one data set.
Individually, Cazenave teaches that the zoning system 206 is responsible for generating a zoning interface to be displayed by the member client device 102 via the experience analytics client 104. The zoning interface provides a visualization of how the users via the customer client devices 106 interact with each element on the client's website. The zoning interface can also provide an aggregated view of in-page behaviors by the users via the customer client device 106 (e.g., clicks, scrolls, navigation). The zoning interface can also provide a side-by-side view of different versions of the client's website for the client's analysis. For example, the zoning system 206 can identify the zones in a client's website that are associated with a particular element in displayed on the website (e.g., an icon, a text link, etc.). Each zone can be a portion of the website being displayed. The zoning interface can include a view of the client's website. The zoning system 206 can generate an overlay including data pertaining to each of the zones to be overlaid on the view of the client's website. The data in the overlay can include, for example, the number of views or clicks associated with each zone of the client's website within a period of time, which can be established by the user of the member client device 102. In one example, the data can be generated using information from the data analysis system 204. In one example, the session replay interface can also include an identification of events (e.g., failed conversions, angry customers, errors in the website, recommendations or insights) that are displayed and allow the user to navigate to the part in the session replay corresponding to the events such that the client can view and analyze the event. The journey system 210 is responsible for generating the journey interface to be displayed by the member client device 102 via the experience analytics client 104. The journey interface includes a visualization of how the visitors progress through the client's website or mobile application, page-by-page, from entry onto the website to the exit (e.g., in a session). The journey interface can include a visualization that provides a customer journey mapping (e.g., sunburst visualization).
Kim teaches that further, according to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may build up bigdata using the data entered from the user terminal 100 as input data. The user data may be classified into structured data, semi-structured data, and unstructured data depending on the structured degree. However, since each item is predetermined, the user data mostly may be classified as the structured data.
Hubbard teaches that the user data includes tax data. The information may include a data format, a data label, a data category, and/or a data mapping instruction. The knowledge engine may be configured to validate mapping of the user data onto the data model.
Ragan teaches that Context engine 202 can be, for example, an application program or a module of an application program, a plug-in, a daemon, a script, or a process. In some implementations, context engine 202 is integrated within operating system 120. In some implementations, context engine 202 operates as a separate application program. In general, context engine 202 receives (or captures through interrogation) the context information. Event monitor 210 can receive information describing user interactions and states of applications. User interactions can include operations resulting from mouse clicks, launching or terminating an application, and the like. Content capture routine 220 can receive text strings or other content being displayed. The text strings can be, for example, part of a message being viewed (e.g., e-mail, SMS, instant message, etc.), a message being created, an incoming message, a web page, and the like.
However, the prior-art, Cazenave, Kim, Hubbard and Ragan failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “classifying, using the predetermined data model, the at least one validated data set generated from the user data of the interactions between a user and the application based on state of the application to generate at least one structured data set”, for claim 1.
Therefore, the prior-art, Cazenave, Kim, Hubbard and Ragan failed to teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10 and the product of claim 19 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1, 10 and 19 regarding 101 Abstract Idea rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the first argument of the remark on pages 11-12 that the amendment to the claims 1, 10 and 19 such as “for processing by an artificial intelligence that utilizes a layered structure of interconnected nodes and artificial neurons to classify the at least one validated data set; classifying, utilizing the artificial intelligence to classify, by the at least one processor using the predetermined data model, the at least one validated data set to generate classified data within at least one structured data set; and utilizing at least one honeypot trap to isolate the captured user data when the classified data indicates that the captured user data comprises malicious traffic” would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner would like to point out that in order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide 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.
I. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING WHETHER ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
The examiner individually identifies the limitation “for processing by an artificial intelligence that utilizes a layered structure of interconnected nodes and artificial neurons to classify the at least one validated data set” as an insignificant additional elements under “field of use” and the limitation “classifying, utilizing the artificial intelligence to classify, by the at least one processor using the predetermined data model, the at least one validated data set to generate classified data within at least one structured data set;” as a mental process and the limitation ”utilizing at least one honeypot trap to isolate the captured user data when the classified data indicates that the captured user data comprises malicious traffic” as a mental process. The detailed rational is provided as part of 101 Abstract Idea rejection above.
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 JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached on 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193