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 .
1. This Action is in response to application 18/592,071, filed on 02/29/2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Oath or Declaration
3. Applicant(s) oath or declaration filed on 02/29/2024 are approved by the office.
Drawings
4. The drawings and specifications filed on 04/24/2024 are approved by the office.
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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determining whether the transmission details for the data transmission conforms with the baseline metadata for the data transmission; and when the transmission details for the data transmission fail to conform with the baseline metadata for the data transmission, transmitting an alert notification”.
The limitation of “determining whether the transmission details for the data transmission conforms with the baseline metadata for the data transmission; and when the transmission details for the data transmission fail to conform with the baseline metadata for the data transmission, transmitting an alert notification”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving baseline metadata for a data transmission; receiving transmission details for the data transmission” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving baseline metadata for a data transmission; receiving transmission details for the data transmission” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Neither mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component nor insignificant extra-solution activity can provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether the transmission details of the data transmission conform with the baseline metadata for the data transmission prior to the data transmission being transmitted to a third party.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
7. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites "determining whether the transmission details for the data transmission conform with the baseline metadata for the data transmission after the data transmission is transmitted to a third party.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong
Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component
cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites "receiving the baseline metadata for the data transmission upon registration of the data transmission for external transmission.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " receiving the baseline metadata for the data transmission upon creation of the data transmission in a database.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " wherein the baseline metadata for the data transmission includes a transmission time, a name, a third party identification, a volume, a frequency, or a list of content attributes for the data transmission.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether a data share of the data transmission is authorized.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A,
Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is
not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong
Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component
cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether the data transmission has a valid permit authorizing the transmission details.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A,
Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is
not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong
Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component
cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “identifying a data transmission for external transmission; determining whether a volume of the data transmission conforms with the historical volume and frequency data; determining whether a time at which the data transmission is transmitted or scheduled to be transmitted to a third party conforms with the historical volume and frequency data; and when the volume of the data transmission fails to conform with the historical volume and frequency data or the time at which the data transmission is transmitted or scheduled to be transmitted to the third party fails to confirm with the historical volume and frequency data, transmitting an alert notification.”.
The limitation of “identifying a data transmission for external transmission; determining whether a volume of the data transmission conforms with the historical volume and frequency data; determining whether a time at which the data transmission is transmitted or scheduled to be transmitted to a third party conforms with the historical volume and frequency data; and when the volume of the data transmission fails to conform with the historical volume and frequency data or the time at which the data transmission is transmitted or scheduled to be transmitted to the third party fails to confirm with the historical volume and frequency data, transmitting an alert notification.”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving historical volume and frequency data” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving historical volume and frequency data” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Neither mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component nor insignificant extra-solution activity can provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
14. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " receiving a mirrored copy of the data transmission". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
15. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether the volume of the data transmission conforms with the historical volume and frequency data prior to the data transmission being transmitted to the third party; and determining whether the time at which the data transmission is scheduled to be transmitted to the third party conforms with the historical volume and frequency data prior to the data transmission being transmitted to the third party.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A,
Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is
not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong
Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component
cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
16. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether the volume of the data transmission conforms with the historical volume and frequency data after the data transmission is transmitted to the third party; and determining whether the time at which the data transmission is transmitted to the third party conforms with the historical volume and frequency data after the data transmission is transmitted to the third party.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
17. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether a data share of the data transmission is authorized.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A,
Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is
not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong
Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component
cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
18. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether the data transmission has a valid permit for transmission thereof.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A,
Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is
not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong
Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component
cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
19. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “identifying a data transmission for external transmission; determining whether runtime data for the data transmission conforms with the design time data; and when the runtime data for the data transmission fails to conform with the design time data, transmitting an alert notification.”.
The limitation of “identifying a data transmission for external transmission; determining whether runtime data for the data transmission conforms with the design time data; and when the runtime data for the data transmission fails to conform with the design time data, transmitting an alert notification.”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving design time data” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving design time data” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Neither mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component nor insignificant extra-solution activity can provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
20. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " receiving a mirrored copy of the data transmission.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
21. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether the runtime data for the data transmission conforms with the design time data while the data transmission is transmitted to a third party.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
22. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether the runtime data for the data transmission conforms with the design time data after the data transmission is transmitted to the third party.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
23. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " wherein the design time data includes volume and frequency data for one or more application programming interfaces (APIs).". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
24. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas
and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites " determining whether the runtime data for transmitting the data transmission via the one or more APIs conforms with the volume and frequency data for the one or more APIs.". 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A,
Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is
not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong
Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component
cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
25. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henderson Jr. et al. (USPUB 2022/0319647 A1) hereinafter Henderson Jr..
26. Regarding Claim 1, Henderson Jr. disclosed a method comprising: receiving baseline metadata for a data transmission; receiving transmission details for the data transmission (see [0009]);
determining whether the transmission details for the data transmission conforms with the baseline metadata for the data transmission (see [0009]); and
when the transmission details for the data transmission fail to conform with the baseline metadata for the data transmission, transmitting an alert notification (see [0009]).
27. Regarding Claim 2, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 1 further comprising: determining whether the transmission details of the data transmission conform with the baseline metadata for the data transmission prior to the data transmission being transmitted to a third party (see [0009] and [0051]).
28. Regarding Claim 3, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 1 further comprising: determining whether the transmission details for the data transmission conform with the baseline metadata for the data transmission after the data transmission is transmitted to a third party (see [0009] and [0051]).
29. Regarding Claim 4, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving the baseline metadata for the data transmission upon registration of the data transmission for external transmission (see [0009], [0032], [0044] and [0051]).
30. Regarding Claim 5, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving the baseline metadata for the data transmission upon creation of the data transmission in a database (see [0009], [0032], [0044] and [0051]).
31. Regarding Claim 6, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 1 wherein the baseline metadata for the data transmission includes a transmission time, a name, a third party identification, a volume, a frequency, or a list of content attributes for the data transmission (see [0009], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051]).
32. Regarding Claim 7, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 1 further comprising: determining whether a data share of the data transmission is authorized (see [0009], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
33. Regarding Claim 8, Henderson Jr. disclosed The method of claim 7 further comprising: determining whether the data transmission has a valid permit authorizing the transmission details (see [0009], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
34. Regarding Claim 9, Henderson Jr. disclosed a method comprising: receiving historical volume and frequency data (see [0009]);
identifying a data transmission for external transmission; determining whether a volume of the data transmission conforms with the historical volume and frequency data; determining whether a time at which the data transmission is transmitted or scheduled to be transmitted to a third party conforms with the historical volume and frequency data; and when the volume of the data transmission fails to conform with the historical volume and frequency data or the time at which the data transmission is transmitted or scheduled to be transmitted to the third party fails to confirm with the historical volume and frequency data, transmitting an alert notification (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
35. Regarding Claim 10, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 9 further comprising: receiving a mirrored copy of the data transmission (see [0009], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
36. Regarding Claim 11, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 9 further comprising: determining whether the volume of the data transmission conforms with the historical volume and frequency data prior to the data transmission being transmitted to the third party; and determining whether the time at which the data transmission is scheduled to be transmitted to the third party conforms with the historical volume and frequency data prior to the data transmission being transmitted to the third party (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
37. Regarding Claim 12, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 9 further comprising: determining whether the volume of the data transmission conforms with the historical volume and frequency data after the data transmission is transmitted to the third party; and determining whether the time at which the data transmission is transmitted to the third party conforms with the historical volume and frequency data after the data transmission is transmitted to the third party (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
38. Regarding Claim 13, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 9 further comprising: determining whether a data share of the data transmission is authorized (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
39. Regarding Claim 14, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 13 further comprising: determining whether the data transmission has a valid permit for transmission thereof (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
40. Regarding Claim 15, Henderson Jr. disclosed a method comprising: receiving design time data (see [0009]);
identifying a data transmission for external transmission; determining whether runtime data for the data transmission conforms with the design time data; and when the runtime data for the data transmission fails to conform with the design time data, transmitting an alert notification (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
41. Regarding Claim 16, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 15 further comprising: receiving a mirrored copy of the data transmission (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
42. Regarding Claim 17, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 15 further comprising: determining whether the runtime data for the data transmission conforms with the design time data while the data transmission is transmitted to a third party (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
43. Regarding Claim 18, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 15 further comprising: determining whether the runtime data for the data transmission conforms with the design time data after the data transmission is transmitted to the third party (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
44. Regarding Claim 19, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 15 wherein the design time data includes volume and frequency data for one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
45. Regarding Claim 20, Henderson Jr. disclosed the method of claim 19 further comprising: determining whether the runtime data for transmitting the data transmission via the one or more APIs conforms with the volume and frequency data for the one or more APIs (see [0009], [0029], [0032], [0044-0046] and [0051-0053]).
Conclusion
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
A method is for checking an integrity of an artificial intelligence (AI) model using distributed ledger technology (DLT). The method leverages state-of-the-art watermarking mechanism and ties it up with DLT to generate proof of origin (provenance) in a tamper-proof way. The AI model is registered on the distributed ledger (DL) by uploading a full checksum, a selective checksum, watermark data, and at least a predefined output of the watermark data. A unique model ID is received upon registration. The ownership and integrity of AI model is then determined by matching the model and the output of the watermark data followed by verification of the full checksum and the selective checksum of the AI model. (Parmar et al. ‘493)
An example cache memory includes a schedule module, control modules, a datapath, and an output module. The cache memory receives requests to read and/or write cache lines. The schedule module maintains a queue of the requests. The schedule module may assign the requests to the control modules based on the queue. A control module, which receives a request, controls the datapath to execute the request, i.e., to read or write the cache line. The control module can control the execution by the datapath from start to end. Multiple control modules may control parallel executions by the datapath. The output module outputs, e.g., to a processor, responses of the cache memory to the requests after the executions. A response may include a cache line. The cache memory may include a buffer that temporarily stores cache lines before the output to avoid deadlock in the datapath during the parallel executions of requests. (Eliaz et al. ‘936)
Users of modern digital libraries (DLs) can keep themselves up-to-date by searching and browsing their favorite collections, or more conveniently by resorting to an alerting service. The alerting service notifies its clients about new or changed documents. Proprietary and mediating alerting services fail to fluidly integrate information from differing collections. So far, no sophisticated service has been proposed that is integrated with the digital library software and covers heterogeneous and distributed collections. This paper analyses the conceptual requirements of this much-sought after service for digital libraries. We demonstrate that the differing concepts of digital libraries and its underlying technical design has extensive influence (a) the expectations, needs and interests of users regarding an alerting service, and (b) on the technical possibilities of the implementation of the service. Our findings show that the range of issues surrounding alerting services for digital libraries, their design and use is greater than one may anticipate. We also show that, conversely, the requirements for an alerting service have considerable impact on the concepts of DL design. Our findings should be of interest for librarians as well as system designers. We highlight and discuss the far-reaching implications for the design of, and interaction with, libraries. This paper discusses the lessons learned from building such a distributed alerting service. We present our prototype implementation as a proof-of-concept for an alerting service for open DL software. (Buchanan et al. “A generic alerting service for digital libraries”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVOUD ZAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2697, Fax (571) 273-2697. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:30-5:30pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVOUD A ZAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445