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 Claims
This action is in reply to application 18/602,988 filed 3/12/2024. Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 14 were amended in the reply filed 8/20/2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12, 14, and 20 were amended in the reply filed 1/6/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 14 were amended in the reply filed 6/1/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 7 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claim recites additional elements, the recited additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 14 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. "The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Reducing generic computer and generic network loads by allegedly improving the abstract idea “applied” to the generic computer is not indicative of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. Instead, it meres indicates an improvement to the abstract idea by reducing computational steps. These arguments further apply to Applicant’s arguments regarding the improvement to a computer or technology or technical field indicating the claims amount to “significantly more” under Step 2B.
Applicant further argues that the instant claims are analogous to Example 40 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the analysis of Example 40 does state that the Example 40 claims provide a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. Specifically, the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis of claim 40 states, “The claim recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring.” Examiner does not see analogous language in the instant claims. While the instant claims involve monitoring data transmitted through a network, the instant claims are directed to the frequency at which data is gathered via the network (i.e., the data tolerance value and data tolerance policy). In other words, the instant claims merely determine how often data is collected and outputs are updated, which is an alleged improvement to the abstract idea and not to a technology or technical field. For example, the claims are not directed to technical network issues such as network delay, packet loss, or jitter described in Example 40. Therefore, Examiner does not view the instant claims as analogous to the eligible claims in Example 40.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 9 each recite method and an information handling system, respectively, for generating, by a processor, a data tolerance policy with a data tolerance value for a data type, wherein the data tolerance value indicates a frequency of collection for the data type; if a data instrumentation request that includes a service level agreement meets a set of criteria that includes whether a number of active data collection policies exceeds a threshold, then modifying the data tolerance value of the data type in the data tolerance policy that is inactive, wherein the set of criteria includes detecting a user presence; validating the service level agreement associated with the data instrumentation request; notifying an application that transmitted the data instrumentation request when the service level agreement passes validation; modifying the data tolerance value of the data type in the data tolerance policy that is inactive in response to detecting the user presence and detecting that the number of active data collection policies exceeds the threshold, wherein the modifying of the data tolerance value includes increasing the data tolerance value that indicates the frequency of collection for the data type; collecting data based on an updated frequency from a peripheral device from a subsystem of an information handling system according to a modified data tolerance value of the data type in the data tolerance policy that is inactive, the data instrumentation request, and the data tolerance policy, wherein the collecting of the data from the peripheral device of the subsystem of the information handling system is performed subsequent to a successful validation of the service level agreement; and caching the collected data and transmitting the cached data in a response to the data instrumentation request, wherein the cached data includes information for determining health of the subsystem of the information handling system. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method and a machine, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations generating ... a data tolerance policy with a data tolerance value for a data type, wherein the data tolerance value indicates a frequency of collection for the data type; if a data instrumentation request that includes a service level agreement meets a set of criteria that includes whether a number of active data collection policies exceeds a threshold, then modifying the data tolerance value of the data type in the data tolerance policy that is inactive, wherein the set of criteria includes detecting a user presence; validating the service level agreement associated with the data instrumentation request; notifying ... that transmitted the data instrumentation request when the service level agreement passes validation; modifying the data tolerance value of the data type in the data tolerance policy that is inactive in response to detecting the user presence and detecting that the number of active data collection policies exceeds the threshold, wherein the modifying of the data tolerance value includes increasing the data tolerance value that indicates the frequency of collection for the data type; collecting data based on an updated frequency ... according to a modified data tolerance value of the data type in the data tolerance policy that is inactive, the data instrumentation request, and the data tolerance policy, wherein the collecting of the data ... is performed subsequent to a successful validation of the service level agreement; and caching the collected data and transmitting the cached data in a response to the data instrumentation request, wherein the cached data includes information for determining health ... as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations) (Examiner’s Note: See spec. para. [0002], “As the value and use of information continues to increase, individuals and businesses seek additional ways to process and store information.” The invention is directed to data analysis and organization in a customer-oriented environment.). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 9 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1 and 9 a processor (claim 1), an application (claims 1 and 9), a peripheral device (claim 1), a subsystem (claims 1 and 9), an information handling system (claims 1 and 9), a memory (claim 9), and a sensor (claim 9) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 9 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1 and 9 a processor (described in spec. para. [0028]), a peripheral device (described in spec. para. [0032]), an information handling system (described in spec. para. [0014]), a memory (described in spec. para. [0016]), and a sensor (described in spec. para. [0032]) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 and 10-13 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-8 and 10-13 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 2-8 and 10-13 do not recite additional elements not previously recited in claims 1 and 9. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 2-8 and 10-13 do not recite additional elements not previously recited in claims 1 and 9. The claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium for receiving a first request to collect a first data type for a first duration and a second request to collect a second data type for a second duration; if there is a duration that overlaps between the first duration and the second duration, then modifying a data tolerance value of a third data type, wherein the third data type is of a third duration that does not overlap with the first duration and the second duration, and wherein the modifying of the data tolerance value of the third data type includes increasing the data tolerance value from an original value resulting in a modified data tolerance value; generating a data tolerance policy that includes a modified data tolerance value of the third data type during the duration that overlaps instead of the data tolerance value; instrumenting a first data value of the first data type from a first sensor of a first subsystem, a second data value of the second data type from a second sensor of a second subsystem, and a third data value of the third data type from a third sensor of a third subsystem based on the modified data tolerance value of the third data type according to the data tolerance policy; and caching the first data value from the first sensor of the first subsystem, the second data value from the second sensor of the second subsystem, and the third data value from the third sensor of the third subsystem then transmitting a first response that includes the cached first data value and a second response that includes the cached second data value: and if the duration that overlaps between the first duration and the second duration passed then reverting the data tolerance value of the third data type to the original value. Therefore, claim 14 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: an article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations receiving a first request to collect a first data type for a first duration and a second request to collect a second data type for a second duration; if there is a duration that overlaps between the first duration and the second duration, then modifying a data tolerance value of a third data type, wherein the third data type is of a third duration that does not overlap with the first duration and the second duration; generating a data tolerance policy that includes a modified data tolerance value of the third data type during the duration that overlaps instead of the data tolerance value; instrumenting a first data value of the first data type ... a second data value of the second data type ... and a third data value of the third data type ... based on the modified data tolerance value of the third data type according to the data tolerance policy; and caching the first data value ... the second data value ... and the third data value ... then transmitting a first response that includes the cached first data value and a second response that includes the cached second data value; and if the duration that overlaps between the first duration and the second duration passed then reverting the data tolerance value of the third data type to an original value, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations) (Examiner’s Note: See spec. para. [0002], “As the value and use of information continues to increase, individuals and businesses seek additional ways to process and store information.” The invention is directed to data analysis and organization in a customer-oriented environment.). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claim 14 a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a first sensor, a first subsystem, a second sensor, a second subsystem, a third sensor, and a third subsystem are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 14 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 14 a non-transitory computer-readable medium (described in spec. para. [0071]), a first sensor (described in spec. para. [0032]), a first subsystem (described in spec. para. [0032]), a second sensor (described in spec. para. [0032]), a second subsystem (described in spec. para. [0032]), a third sensor (described in spec. para. [0032]), and a third subsystem (described in spec. para. [0032]) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 15-20 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 15-20 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 15-20 do not recite additional elements not previously recited in claim 14. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 15-20 do not recite additional elements not previously recited in claim 14. The claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-20 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Song (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0336486) in view of Frost (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0029871). Other cited references include: Alpert (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0291831), Beck (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0114494), Kakadia (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0281004), Toy (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0269303), Toy (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0126368), Chilton (U.S. Pat. No. 8,010,738), Sauer (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0314224), and LeRoy (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0129444). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
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 CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights