DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 15-17, and 19-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13-20 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
As a result, the Examiner withdraws the claim interpretation of the pending claims in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the invention remains an abstract idea, most notably Mathematical concept and mental processes. The core concept of the independent claim is analyzing data using mathematical formulas to detect anomalies. Courts classify this under two sub-categories as an abstract idea.
Mathematical concept: the claim explicitly relies on a mathematical formula calculating a measure of surprise based on change of entropy ∆H and a predetermined scaling factor “k”.
Mental process: collecting metrics, calculating scores, and storing data (even voluminous data) are considered functions that can be performed mentally or are generic data manipulation steps regardless of the time involved. The claims use a specialized microprocessor fabricated to perform fast processing on the fly to generate at least one million scores from at least one thousand micro-statistical models. However, under Federal Circuit precedent (e.g., Electric Power Group), merely processing data faster or handling large volume of data on a computer does not change the abstract nature of the claimed mathematical manipulation.
The Examiner submits that under Step 2B, the present claims do not provide an inventive concept. The present claims deploy hardware-based processor, memory, and user interface. Such components are generic computer hardware performing their standard functions. In addition, while the claim specifies a specialized microprocessor fabricated to perform fast processing on the fly it does not claim any novel physical architecture or hardware design for the microprocessor. It describes the hardware solely by its function (fast processing on the fly) not by their actual physical design. The specification as filed is also silent regarding such hardware architecture. Further, the remediation computing device performing actions like rollback, deletion, or flagging problematic data represents conventional data-maintenance steps (Post-Solution Activity). Automating the deletion or flagging of erroneous data does not provide a patent-eligible technological solution to a technological problem; it is simply a standard response to data analysis.
In conclusion, because the pending claims are directed to a mathematical algorithm for data filtering and relies on functionally described, generic hardware to execute the calculation faster, the pending claims as amended are not eligible under 35 USC § 101 and the Examiner maintains the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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 1-2, 4-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of detecting anomalous data and generating and displaying metric scores.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “receiving user inputs including risk levels, risk tier levels, collect a plurality of metrics measuring a plurality of attributes of voluminous received data from a plurality of entities grouped into a plurality of peer groups; generate a plurality of measures of surprise (MoS) with each measure of surprise is generated for every single metric of the plurality of metrics and for every peer group of the plurality of peer group using a predetermined measuring algorithm applied to the metrics, wherein each measure of surprise is determined from:
M
o
S
(
M
i
,
A
)
=
(
1
+
1
(
1
+
e
-
k
(
∆
H
-
1
)
)
M
e
t
r
i
c
S
h
a
r
e
I
n
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
wherein ∆H is a change in an entropy of a respective metric Mi with reference to a respective attribute A of the plurality of attributes from a reference period to an observation period, MetricShareInReferencePeriod is determined from counts of the metrics, and k is a predetermined scaling factor to generate at least one thousand micro-statistical models from the plurality of measures of surprise, from each metric of the plurality of metrics, and from each peer group in the plurality of peer groups, generate at least one million scores, with each score of the generated at least one million scores is associated with a corresponding metric using the measures of surprise; responsive to the risk levels, the risk tier levels, and the settings, to change operating parameters and behavior of the system on the fly to detect problematic data among the received data using the generated at least one million scores generated from the at least one thousand micro-statistical models; and a remediation computing device executes the instructions using the hardware-based processor and, responsive to user-defined criteria and the user inputs from a user, remediates the problematic data detected using the generated at least one million scores generated from the at least one thousand micro-statistical models generated by the fabricated specialized microprocessor, including performing a remediation action selected from the group consisting of: a roll back of the problematic data, deletion of the problematic data, or flagging the problematic data, thereby correcting anomalies, outliers, or errors in the voluminous received data from the plurality of entities.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because an ordinary person can reasonably collect and analyze data to detect anomaly. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2, 4-9, 13-18, and 20 recite a Mental Process because the claimed elements describe a process for detecting anomalous data and generating and displaying metric scores. As a result, claims 2, 4-9, 13-18, and 20recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system, comprising: a hardware-based processor generating a user interface for”, “an analysis module configured to”, “and settings through the user interface; a memory configured to store instructions and configured to provide the instructions to the hardware-based processor; and a plurality of computing devices configured to implement the instructions provided to the hardware-based processor, the plurality of computing devices including: a metric collection computing device configured to”, “an analysis computing device configured to”, “wherein the generated micro-statistical models are generated by a specialized microprocessor fabricated to perform fast processing on the fly based on the user-defined criteria input through the user interface, and to”, “from the at least one thousand micro-statistical models generated by the fabricated specialized microprocessor”, “a detection computing device,”, “generated by the fabricated specialized microprocessor”, “received through the interface”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “collecting” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “collecting” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 10 further recites “A system, comprising: a display; a hardware-based processor; a memory configured to store instructions and configured to provide the instructions to the hardware-based processor; and a set of modules configured to implement the instructions provided to the hardware-based processor, the set of module”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 4-9, 13-18, and 20do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 19. As a result, claims 2, 4-9, 13-18, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system, comprising: a hardware-based processor generating a user interface for”, “an analysis module configured to”, “and settings through the user interface; a memory configured to store instructions and configured to provide the instructions to the hardware-based processor; and a plurality of computing devices configured to implement the instructions provided to the hardware-based processor, the plurality of computing devices including: a metric collection computing device configured to”, “an analysis computing device configured to”, “wherein the generated micro-statistical models are generated by a specialized microprocessor fabricated to perform fast processing on the fly based on the user-defined criteria input through the user interface, and to”, “from the at least one thousand micro-statistical models generated by the fabricated specialized microprocessor”, “a detection computing device,”, “generated by the fabricated specialized microprocessor”, “received through the interface”. The step of “collecting” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “collecting” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 10 further recites “A system, comprising: a display; a hardware-based processor; a memory configured to store instructions and configured to provide the instructions to the hardware-based processor; and a set of modules configured to implement the instructions provided to the hardware-based processor, the set of module”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 4-9, 13-18, and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 19. As a result, claims 2, 4-9, 13-18, and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights