DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed October 22, 2025. Claims 1, 4–6, 9, 12–14, and 16 are amended; claims 3, 8, and 11 are canceled; and claims 17–21 are newly added. Claims 1–2, 4–7, 9–10, and 12–21 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous interpretation of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Accordingly, the previous interpretation of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the element for “generating and displaying” cannot recite a mental process because the element requires a client to perform the displaying step on an interface. Examiner disagrees. As an initial matter, Examiner notes that none of the presented claims recite an interface. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because the remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
However, even if the claims were interpreted as reciting “generating and displaying” on an interface, Examiner maintains that the functionality of “generating and displaying a chart” recites a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) indicates that mental processes “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper”. In view of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), Examiner submits that, although an interface would be considered as an additional element under Step 2A Prong Two, functionality for “generating and displaying a chart” embodies a mental process under Step 2A Prong One because the recited functionality can be performed by a human using pen and paper. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts that, when considered in view of paragraph 73 of the Specification, the claims include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner disagrees. Similarly to the above, the claims do not recite a terminal, and as a result, Applicant’s remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Further, even if the claims were amended to recite the disclosed terminal, paragraph 73 describes the terminal in generic terms without disclosing any technical improvements. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant asserts that the references of record fail to disclose the newly recited features, such that the features provide a technical improvement over the prior art. Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(I) indicates that “[b]ecause they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” Here, without considering the prior art of record, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A and do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the reasons asserted below. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Accordingly, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained and reasserted below.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily asserts that Fletcher does not disclose a relationship between two indicators because the disclosure of Fletcher is limited to disclosing a KPI and its corresponding KPI value. Examiner disagrees.
As previously asserted, col. 23, ll. 38–50, in view of col. 16, ll. 14–32, disclose calculating an aggregate service KPI by obtaining values for each component KPI using a search query. Further, col. 24, ll. 9–20 clarifies that a search query is performed to obtain KPI values for each component KPI in order to determine an aggregate KPI value that indicates an overall performance of the service. Examiner submits that each component KPI value, which is obtained via a search query, is a basic indicator in a data table, whereas the aggregate KPI is an indicator dependent on each basic indicator. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining remarks have been fully considered and are not persuasive for the same reasons as stated above.
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, 4–7, 9–10, and 12–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–2, 4–7, 9–10, and 12–21 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “acquiring a data analysis request, wherein the data analysis request comprises at least one data indicator”; “analyzing the at least one data indicator according to a calculation model of the at least one data indicator to obtain a basic indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends, wherein the calculation model comprises a dependency relationship between the at least one data indicator and the basic indicator”; “according to a query result of the basic indicator, performing calculation on the query result of the basic indicator through the calculation model to obtain a query result of the at least one data indicator”; and “generating and displaying a chart corresponding to a type of the at least one data indicator according to the query result of the at least one data indicator, wherein the analyzing the at least one data indicator according to the calculation model of the at least one data indicator to obtain the basic indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends, comprises: according to the calculation model of the at least one data indicator, determining an indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends, wherein the indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends comprises one or more of an intermediate result indicator and a basic indicator; and filtering the basic indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends, from the indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind of by a human using pen and paper. Further, the elements for “analyzing”, “performing”, and “determining” recite mathematical concepts because the elements recite mathematical calculations and/or relationships. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 9 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 9 and 16 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–15, and 17–21 further describe the process for performing calculations for obtaining at least one data indicator and further recite mental processes and/or mathematical concepts for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–15, and 17–21 recite 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 an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a data table. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the data table does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 9 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further includes a processor and a memory, and claim 16 recites a computer-readable medium, he additional elements, when considered in view of the claims as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 9 and 16 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–15, and 17–21 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–15, and 17–21 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–15, and 17–21 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
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 an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a data table. The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the data table does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 9 and 16 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further includes a processor and a memory, and claim 16 recites a computer-readable medium, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components 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 9 and 16 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–15, and 17–21 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–15, and 17–21 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–15, and 17–21 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–2, 4–7, 9–10, and 12–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–2, 4–7, 9–10, and 12–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher et al. (U.S. 11,296,955) in view of Iwama et al. (U.S. 2014/0129297).
Claims 1, 9, and 16: Fletcher discloses a data analysis method, comprising:
acquiring a data analysis request, wherein the data analysis request comprises at least one data indicator (See col. 23, ll. 38–50, wherein each service KPI calculation includes a request/query for values necessary for the KPI calculation; see also col. 16, ll. 14–32 and ll. 45–64);
analyzing the at least one data indicator according to a calculation model of the at least one data indicator to obtain a basic indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends, wherein the calculation model comprises a dependency relationship between the at least one data indicator and the basic indicator (See col. 23, ll. 38–50, in view of col. 16, ll. 14–32, wherein calculating the aggregate/overall service KPI requires obtaining values for each component KPI), the basic indicator is an indicator in a data table, and the at least one data indicator is an indicator that cannot be directed acquired from the data table by querying (See col. 23, ll. 38–50 and col. 24, ll. 9–20, wherein component KPI values are obtained using search queries, and wherein the aggregate KPI is not calculated from the obtained values; see also FIG. 32 and the associated disclosure);
according to a query result of the basic indicator, performing calculation on the query result of the basic indicator through the calculation model to obtain a query result of the at least one data indicator (See col. 23, ll. 38–50, in view of col. 16, ll. 14–32, wherein calculating the service KPI calculation requires obtaining values for each component KPI); and
generating and displaying a chart corresponding to the at least one data indicator according to the query result of the at least on data indicator (See FIG. 75C–D and col. 199, l. 24–col. 200, l. 24, wherein topological graphs are generated for a service, the sub-services upon which the service depends, and the base KPIs associated with the service, and col. 23, ll. 38–50 and col. 24, ll. 9–20, wherein KPI values are retrieved using a search query to determine the query result for the overall KPI; see also FIG. 34AS and col. 133, ll. 32–50);
wherein the analyzing the at least one data indicator according to the calculation model of the at least one data indicator to obtain the basic indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends, comprises: according to the calculation model of the at least one data indicator, determining an indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends, wherein the indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends comprises one or more of an intermediate result indicator and a basic indicator (See col. 95, l. 57–col. 96, l. 10, wherein each overall service KPI may be comprised of sub-service KPIs, which are in turn comprised of a combination of base KPIs; see also col. 121, ll. 11–39, wherein services are similarly arranged in a hierarchy, and wherein KPIs for each service in the hierarchy are implicitly comprised of KPI values for each dependent service in the hierarchy); and
filtering the basic indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends, from the indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends (See col. 121, ll. 11–39, wherein services are arranged in a hierarchy, and wherein services identified within the hierarchy as “depends on” may be filtered). Fletcher does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Iwama discloses generating and displaying a chart corresponding to a type of the at least one data indicator (See FIG. 4A–C and paragraph 49, wherein component KPIs are charted according to a type of component KPI).
Fletcher discloses a system directed to aggregating KPI values across hierarchical services. Iwama discloses a system directed to aggregating task KPI values with respect to an overall process KPI. Each reference discloses a system directed to aggregating component KPI values into an overall KPI value. The technique of charting a type of data indicator is applicable to the system of Fletcher as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to aggregating component KPI values.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Iwama would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Iwama to the teachings of Fletcher would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate KPI aggregation into similar systems. Further, applying indicator type considerations to Fletcher would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 9, Fletcher discloses a processor and a memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to allow the device to perform a method (See FIG. 83 and col. 230, l. 64–col. 231, l. 19).
With respect to claim 16, Fletcher discloses a computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions, wherein the instructions are configured to instruct a device to perform the method (See FIG. 83, col. 230, l. 64–col. 231, l. 19, and col. 231, ll. 27–53).
Claims 2, 10, and 17: Fletcher discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving an attribute of the at least one data indicator configured by a user through a configuration interface, wherein the attribute comprises an identification and a calculation method of the at least one data indicator (See FIG. 34NA–B and col. 129, ll. 40–63, wherein each component KPI is weighted with respect to the service KPI calculation; see also col. 23, ll. 38–50, col. 16, ll. 14–32, and col. 24, ll. 38–44); and
constructing the calculation model of the at least one data indicator according to the identification and the calculation method (See FIG. 34NA–B and col. 129, ll. 40–63 and col. 130, ll. 61–65, wherein the service KPI calculation model is defined according to component KPIs).
Claims 4, 12, and 18: Fletcher discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein according to the query result of the basic indicator, the performing calculation on the query result of the basic indicator through the calculation model to obtain the query result of the at least one data indicator, comprises:
according to the query result of the basic indicator, performing calculation on the query result of the basic indicator based on a dependency relationship between the intermediate result indicator and the basic indicator, to obtain a query result of the intermediate result indicator (See col. 23, ll. 38–50, in view of col. 16, ll. 14–32 and col. 95, l. 57–col. 96, l. 10, wherein each overall service KPI may be comprised of sub-service KPIs, which are in turn comprised of a combination of base KPIs); and
performing calculation on the query result of the intermediate result indicator based on a dependency relationship between the at least one data indicator and the intermediate result indicator, to obtain the query result of the at least one data indicator (See col. 23, ll. 38–50, in view of col. 16, ll. 14–32 and col. 95, l. 57–col. 96, l. 10, wherein each overall service KPI may be comprised of sub-service KPIs, which are in turn comprised of a combination of base KPIs).
Claims 5, 13, and 19: Fletcher discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: converting the calculation model of the at least one data indicator into a domain model, wherein the domain model comprises the indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends and a calculation method of the at least one data indicator (See col. 23, ll. 38–50, in view of col. 16, ll. 14–32 and col. 95, l. 57–col. 96, l. 10, wherein each overall service KPI may be comprised of sub-service KPIs, which are in turn comprised of a combination of base KPIs, and wherein the overall service KPI calculation model is the domain model, which identifies the underlying sub-service and base KPIs and calculation models for each KPI in the hierarchy; see also, col. 15, ll. 45–58, col. 23, ll. 38–50, and col. 24, ll. 38–44); and
according to the query result of the basic indicator, the performing calculation on the query result of the basic indicator through the calculation model to obtain the query result of the at least one data indicator, comprises:
according to the query result of the basic indicator, performing calculation on the query result of the basic indicator based on the indicator on which the at least one data indicator depends in the domain model and the calculation method of the at least one data indicator in the domain model, to obtain the query result of the at least one data indicator (See col. 23, ll. 38–50, in view of col. 16, ll. 14–32 and col. 95, l. 57–col. 96, l. 10, wherein each overall service KPI may be comprised of sub-service KPIs, which are in turn comprised of a combination of base KPIs, and wherein the overall service KPI calculation model is the domain model).
Claims 6, 14, and 20: Fletcher discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: generating the chart corresponding to the at least one data indicator according to the query result of the at least one data indicator; and presenting the chart corresponding to the at least one data indicator to a user (See FIG. 75C–D and col. 199, l. 24–col. 200, l. 24, wherein topological graphs are generated for a service, the sub-services upon which the service depends, and the base KPIs associated with the service). Fletcher does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Iwama discloses generating the chart corresponding to the type of the at least one data indicator; and presenting the chart corresponding to the type of the at least one data indicator to a user (See FIG. 4A–C and paragraph 49, wherein component KPIs are charted according to a type of component KPI).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Iwama would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 7, 15, and 21: Fletcher discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the calculation model of the at least one data indicator is represented by a directed acyclic graph DAG, a vertex of the DAG represents an identification, and an edge of the DAG represents a calculation method (See FIG. 75C–D and col. 199, l. 24–col. 200, l. 24, wherein topological graphs are generated for a service, the sub-services upon which the service depends, and the base KPIs associated with the service).
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights