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 .
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites receiving, by a server, via one or more network packets, a plurality of machine- generated application performance events from a plurality of computing devices; determining, by the server, a first event type and a user identifier for the at least one particular application performance event; identifying, by the server, a particular data table corresponding to the user identifier from a plurality of data tables corresponding to a plurality of user identifiers; identifying, by the server, a particular data table corresponding to the user identifier from a plurality of data tables corresponding to a plurality of user identifiers; and identifying, by the server, at least one type of error occurring in a particular version of the computer application program. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation this covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Metal Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the collecting of data amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. After receiving application event, identifying particular data related to users and particular data the method identifies and determines a user experience score, which relates to the formulating evaluations, observations and opinions. This also falls within the “Metal Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because causing displaying by the server, of information relating to the user experience score for the particular version of the computer application program has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to Claims 22-25, applicant fails to disclose any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
As to claims 26-27, applicant discloses additional limitation for retrieving and storing data. This represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide integration of the judicial exception into practical application.
Claims 28-40 are rejected under the same reasoning as stated above. Although claims 28-34 disclose a computer readable media using generic computer components to perform the steps of the method disclosed in claims 20-27. Claims 35-40 disclose a system that performs the method steps of claims 21-27.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s independent claims disclose: receiving, by a server, via one or more network packets, a plurality of machine- generated application performance events from a plurality of computing devices based at least in part on execution of instrumented code by the plurality of computing devices, wherein execution of the instrumented code by a particular computing device of the plurality of computing devices causes the particular computing device to monitor execution of an instance of a computer application program on the computing device and generate at least one particular application performance event of the plurality of application performance events in response to the monitoring; determining, by the server, a first event type and a user identifier for the at least one particular application performance event; identifying, by the server, a particular data table corresponding to the user identifier from a plurality of data tables corresponding to a plurality of user identifiers, wherein the particular data table stores at least one earlier-in-time application performance event associated with the user identifier, wherein the at least one earlier-in-time application performance event is associated with a second event type that is different from the first event type, and the at least one earlier-in-time application performance event occurred earlier in time than the at least one particular application performance event; storing, by the server, the at least one particular application performance event in the particular data table; identifying, by the server, at least one type of error occurring in a particular version of the computer application program using the least one earlier-in-time application performance event and the at least one particular application performance event; determining in near real-time, by the server, a user experience score using the at least one type of error; and causing display, by the server, of information relating to the user experience score for the particular version of the computer application program.
Prior art fails to disclose identifying, by the server, a particular data table corresponding to the user identifier from a plurality of data tables corresponding to a plurality of user identifiers, wherein the particular data table stores at least one earlier-in-time application performance event associated with the user identifier, wherein the at least one earlier-in-time application performance event is associated with a second event type that is different from the first event type, and the at least one earlier-in-time application performance event occurred earlier in time than the at least one particular application performance event; storing, by the server, the at least one particular application performance event in the particular data table; identifying, by the server, at least one type of error occurring in a particular version of the computer application program using the least one earlier-in-time application performance event and the at least one particular application performance event; determining in near real-time, by the server, a user experience score using the at least one type of error. These limitations in combination with the claim as a whole is patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
More specifically, claim 21 requires a number of elements that are plainly technical in character and should not reasonably be interpreted as a mere mental process. For example, the elements of claim 21 include "receiving, by a server, via one or more network packets, a plurality of machine- generated application performance events from a plurality of computing devices based at least in part on execution of instrumented code by the plurality of computing devices, wherein execution of the instrumented code by a particular computing device of the plurality of computing devices causes the particular computing device to monitor execution of an instance of a computer application program on the computing device and generate at least one particular application performance event of the plurality of application performance events in response to the monitoring, determining, by the server, a first event type and a user identifier for the at least one particular application performance event; identifying, by the server, a particular data table corresponding to the user identifier from a plurality of data tables corresponding to a plurality of user identifiers, wherein the particular data table stores at least one earlier-in-time application performance event associated with the user identifier, wherein the at least one earlier-in-time application performance event is associated with a second event type that is different from the first event type, and the at least one earlier-in-time application performance event occurred earlier in time than the at least one particular application performance event; storing, by the server, the at least one particular application performance event in the particular data table; identifying, by the server, at least one type of error occurring in a particular version of the computer application program using the least one earlier-in-time application performance event and the at least one particular application performance event; determining in near real-time, by the server, a user experience score using the at least one type of error; and causing display, in a user interface tailored to application developers for real-time error diagnosis and release quality comparison, of information relating to the user experience score associated with the at least one type of error for the particular version of the computer application program and information relating to another user experience score associated with a different version of the computer application program or a different application program, providing verifiable metrics derived from events occurring in association with the computer application program to reduce computer resource inefficiencies associated with lower quality applications.” Even under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these elements and others should be found to require a particular type of query processing software, not a mere mental process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claim recites computer components such a as a server, computing device, network packets, the claim is still directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing and presenting information. Implementing an abstract idea using generic computing components does not remove the claim from the mental process category. See Electric Power Group where the Federal circuit held that real time data collection, analysis and reporting is abstract when performed on generic computer components.
Applicant states:
Applicant submits that the pending claims should be found to reflect an improvement in computer applications and quality thereof, which supports eligibility under step 1 (the claims are directed to a bona fide technological improvement), under step 2 (these elements described above are significantly more than an abstract idea because they result in a bona fide technological improvement), and as a practical application (this technological improvement is evidence that the claims include an integrated practical application).
By way of background, the Specification describes "assessing the quality of computer applications is often difficult in a highly diverse, mobile environment where users can use many different types of devices and have many different choices of computer applications. As a result, many approaches of assessing the quality of computer applications require high costs, yet still produce only inaccurate, unreliable, repetitive, partial, anecdotal results." Para. [0004]. As such, the technological solution relates to "comput[ing] and assess[ing] quality indicators of computer applications with a high degree of accuracy, reliability, completeness, etc., as compared with other approaches." Para. [0017]. "Quality scores...are computed based on verifiable metrics derived from application events that occur with computer applications.... Techniques as described herein can be used to prevent errors and uncertainty caused by overactive users or dormant users from unduly influencing quality scores of computer applications or their releases." Para. [0024]. The Specification further describes that the "quality indicators ...are based on numbers of unique users.... As a result, uncertainty, inaccuracy, unreliability, etc., in computing quality indicators over a wide range of possible data sets can be prevented or reduced as compared with other approaches." Para. [0084].
Using the claimed technique should be found to constitute a bona fide technological improvement to of applications and quality associated therewith, and more specifically, a more efficient user interface and computing system. In this regard, claim 21 recites, among other things, "causing display, in a user interface tailored to application developers for real- time error diagnosis and release quality comparison, of information relating to the user experience score associated with the at least one type of error for the particular version of the computer application program and information relating to another user experience score associated with a different version of the computer application program or a different application program, providing verifiable metrics derived from events occurring in association with the computer application program to reduce computer resource inefficiencies associated with lower quality applications."
In particular, and as described in the Specification, "uncertainty, inaccuracy, unreliability, etc., in computing quality indicators over a wide range of possible data sets can be prevented or reduced as compared with other approaches." Para. [0084]. Because the "user experience score" presented in the claims is accurate and enables verifiable metrics derived from events occurring in association with a computer application program, computer resource inefficiencies associated with lower quality applications are reduced. Accordingly, generating and providing a user experience score associated with a type of error(s) for a particular version of a computer application program, as described in the claims, provides a technological improvement, as described in the Specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s alleged improvement relates to the information produced rather than to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or technology. Improving the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information resulting from the analysis does not constitute a technological improvement. The claim is still directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing and presenting information.
Applicant states:
Further, the claims are directed to a practical application. For example, the claimed method provides a practical application by enabling real-time, automated monitoring and quantification of software application quality through the collection and analysis of machine generated performance events from computing devices. Unlike abstract ideas of mere data collection or analysis, this invention improves the technical field of software quality assurance by integrating instrumented code within applications to generate specific performance events, which are then processed by a server to identify errors, compute user experience scores, and provide information relating to user experience scores. This results in enhanced operational efficiency, reducing resource waste by focusing developer attention on critical issues affecting user satisfaction. The system's ability to associate events with unique user identifiers, track error progression across application versions, and present quality scores in an intuitive user interface further demonstrates a tangible technological improvement beyond conventional data processing. Therefore, the claim recites a specific, practical solution to the technical problem of monitoring and improving software application reliability.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed technique represents an improved software interface, as the Federal Circuit found eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite receiving performance events, analyzing the events, identifying errors, computing a user experience score and presenting the results. These steps reflect collecting, organizing, analyzing and presenting information which the courts have held to be an abstract idea. The generic computing components is being used to perform the data analysis while the claims do not recite any specific improvement to the technology or computer functionality. Applicant’s statement of improved operational efficiency and reduced resource waste describe benefits of the information being produced rather than an improvement to the technology or computer functionality.
Applicant states:
More specifically, an eligible improvement is one which "improves the efficiency of using the electronic device." Id. In Core Wireless Licensing, the claims accomplished this improved user efficiency "by bringing together a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data, which can be accessed directly from the main menu." Id. (internal quotes omitted). The claimed technique presented the user with "the most relevant data or functions without actually opening the application up." Id. (internal quotes omitted). This improved "[t]he speed of a user's navigation . . . because it saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated." Id. (internal quotes omitted). Thus, the Federal Circuit has decreed that improving "the speed of a user's navigation" indicates "an [eligible] improvement in the functioning of computers." See id.
Like the claims that were found eligible in Core Wireless Licensing, Applicant's pending claims should be found patent eligible. Independent claim 1, for example, recites "causing display, in a user interface tailored to application developers forreal-time error diagnosis and release quality comparison, of information relating to the user experience score associated with the at least one type of error for the particular version of the computer application program and information relating to another user experience score associated with a different version of the computer application program or a different application program, providing verifiable metrics derived from events occurring in association with the computer application program to reduce computer resource inefficiencies associated with lower quality applications." More specifically, the pending claims offer various opportunities for enabling input via a user interface and efficiently providing relevant data thereby making it easier and simpler for a user to specify and view desired aspects such as user experience scores associated with at least one type of error for the particular version of the computer application program and information relating to another user experience score associated with a different version of the computer application program or a different application program. As described in the Specification, "[t]echniques as described herein can be used to compute and assess quality indicators of computer applications with a high degree of accuracy, reliability, completeness, etc., as compared with other approaches." Application, Para. [0017].
Furthermore, such aspects further enhance the convenience of navigation. Features such as these make it easier for users to find relevant information, which should be found to improve the efficiency with which a user interacts with a computer.
In addition to the efficiencies provided by the claimed interface, the pending claims should be found to reduce the computational burden imposed by conventional implementations. More specifically, the same features that enhance the ability to view information efficiently reduces the number of operations a computer user has to make and results in reducing the memory utilization, CPU cycles, number of operations that need to be performed by the computer, and power consumption. These benefits provide further support for finding that the claimed interface provides a bonafide technological improvement. As a result, the pending claims should be found patent eligible under Core Wireless Licensing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Applicant argues that the pending claims improve the user interface efficiency by presenting relevant information resulting in reducing user navigation, computational burden and improving efficiency. Core wireless is directed to a concrete interface structure and navigation mechanism, not merely presenting information. The claims recite displaying user experience scores and related to another user experience score, but do not recite any specific interface structure or layout that improves computer functionality. The claims merely present the results of data analysis to users, which constitutes an insignificant post solution activity. Applicant’s claim of reduced CPU, memory and power usage are benefits of presenting information and the claims do not recite the specific technical mechanism that provides these improvements. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES EHNE whose telephone number is (571)272-2471. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES EHNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights