Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-5,7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind as well as mathematical concepts - mathematical equations and mathematical calculations.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-5,7-13 recite a method, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis
Regarding claim 1,
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
For step 2A eligibility prong one(does the claim recite a judicial exception?), the claim(s) recite(s) “generating the portion of the first test sequence;”(this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “determining,…, a numeric difference value P2 between XA and XB;” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”], under broadest reasonable interpretation, this is also considered a mathematical calculation [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) 1. “Mathematical concepts”]), “determining ,…, that the portion of the second test sequence differs from the portion of the first test sequence;”(this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “determining, by the client device, a first offset minit associated with a value of an element Xinit of the portion of the second test sequence based on the equation Xinit = minitP2 mod2N; ” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”], under broadest reasonable interpretation, this is also considered a mathematical calculation [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) 1. “Mathematical concepts”]), “in accordance with the determination that the portion of the second test sequence differs from the portion of the first test sequence,”(this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “wherein determining that the portion of the second test sequence differs from the portion of the first test sequence comprises determining that minit differs from a second offset of the portion of the first test sequence.” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]). As claimed, this process can practically be performed either in the human mind or using a computer as a tool.
Even if the limitations require a computer, it can still be a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C. "A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process"]. Generating data streams based on received parameters, calculating the difference between values XA and XB , calculating the first offset minit using the equation Xinit = minit P2 mod 2N , and determining that the portion of the second test sequence differs from the portion of the first test sequence are directed to mental processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, because the steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
For step 2A eligibility prong two(does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?), This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of “transmitting, to a server, a request for a portion of a first test sequence, wherein the first test sequence is associated with a numeric value P1;”, “receiving, from the server, a portion of a second test sequence of N-bit values comprising a first N-bit value XA followed sequentially by a second N-bit value XB;”, “performing an error reporting procedure including reporting P2.”, are insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, data sending, and presentation[see MPEP 2106.05(g) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.]
The additional computer parts(“a client device”, and “server”) are generic components recited at a high level of generality[see MPEP 2106.05(b) “If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”]. As a whole, the claims are directed to several abstract mental processes implemented on a generic computer, but are not integrated into a practical application[see MPEP 2106.05(f) “implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two”].
The claim’s client device, server, request for test data, receiving test data, and reporting do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations are specified at a high level of generality, and does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims generally link the abstract idea to a networked server and a client device. The claim provides test result analysis, required data collection steps, and presentation steps, but there is no improvement to the functioning of the computer or network itself as no change to the system is done, and none of the limitations are specific to a particular technological environment or field. [See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two” and also MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment” “vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”]
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
For step 2B eligibility (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements are either gathering/storing data(“transmitting, to a server, a request for a portion of a first test sequence, wherein the first test sequence is associated with a numeric value P1;”, “receiving, from the server, a portion of a second test sequence of N-bit values comprising a first N-bit value XA followed sequentially by a second N-bit value XB;”), presenting data(“performing an error reporting procedure including reporting P2.”), or are additional computer parts that are well known components recited at a high level of generality(server).
These data gathering/storing/presenting limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because these limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output) [see MPEP 2106.05(g) “(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. “, “(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).”, “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”]
The claim’s server generally link the abstract idea to the field of a networked server and client device. Combined and considered as a whole, the claim provides test result analysis, required data collection steps, and presentation steps, but there is no improvement to the functioning of the computer or network itself as no change to the system is done, and none of the limitations are specific to a particular technological environment or field. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. [See MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment” “vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”] [also see MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. …. If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”]
Conclusion: In light of the above, the limitations in claim 1 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
As for the limitations recited in claims 2-5,7-13, claims 3,9,11,12 also introduce an additional abstract idea (mathematical calculation type) with their numeric difference value determination(claims 3,13), and equations(claims 9,11,12). When considering each of the claims 2-5,7-13 as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional element do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5,7-13 would be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is no prior art for claims 1-5,7-13 because of the inclusion of the following limitations: “determining a first offset minit associated with a value of an element Xinit of the portion of the second test sequence based on the equation Xinit = minit P2 mod 2N, wherein determining that the portion of the second test sequence differs from the portion of the first test sequence comprises determining that minit differs from a second offset of the portion of the first test sequence.”. Although references like US 6097815 A (Shimada) teach using a similar formula X = MP mod 2N in col 1 ln 15-25, it would not be obvious to determine the minit value from the generated sequence and determining that minit differs from a second offset of the portion of the first test sequence. Normally, you compare two numbers either directly like how Crowder does it, or by comparing checksums or portions of checksums. What applicant is doing here is specific to how the test sequence is generated using the equation Xinit = minit P2 mod 2N to generate predictable test sequences, and then confirming that the test sequences are generated correctly by re-calculating the generation parameter Minit associated with a value of an element Xinit of the portion of the second test sequence, based on the generation equation Xinit = minit P2 mod 2N. Dependent claims 2-5,7-13 have no prior art for the same reasons as they depend on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 6 -7, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see remarks page 5-6, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the independent claim, the applicant has argued that the steps are all explicitly performed by a client device, which amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions(abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical concepts). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner interprets “client device” as a generic computer as it could incorporate any kind of computer, mobile device, internet of things device, cloud based device/service, or any other device a client can control to connect to the network. “server” is also similarly generic. Implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. [see MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. …. If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”]
With respect to the independent claim, the applicant has also argued that the steps cannot be performed as a mental process. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract ideas of generating data streams based on received parameters, calculating the difference between values XA and XB , calculating the first offset minit using the equation Xinit = minit P2 mod 2N , and determining that the portion of the second test sequence differs from the portion of the first test sequence do not contain steps that cannot be performed by the human mind with a paper and pencil and merely use computers as a tool to perform the processes. [see 2106.04(a)(2) III. C. "A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process"]. The data sending, receiving, and presenting steps use generic computer components and are considered necessary data gathering and outputting in step 2A prong two and step 2B. [see MPEP 2106.05(g) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180167304 A1 - Crowder - object integrity verification in content delivery networks.
US 20130166634 A1 - Holland - identifying different versions of a requested object in a content delivery network.
US 20170366355 A1 - Alomair - similar formula, par 39. parity check context.
US 20050050122 A1 - Blumenthal - mentions Linear congruential generators and provides a pseudo random number generator.
US 20050044119 A1 - Langin-Hooper - mentions linear congruential generators in the background section. Also mentions US6097815A – Shimada
US 6097815 A - Shimada - implements a linear congruential generator.
US 6115422 A - Anderson - uses a continuity counter to label packets and flags errors when packet continuity counters don't match expected values.
US 8489970 B1 - Riani - does seed recovery by brute forcing possible seeds.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 MICHAEL XU whose telephone number is (571)272-5688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/M.X./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113