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 Interpretation
Using claim 1 as exemplary, the table below represents the Examiner’s Interpretation in light of the original disclosure of independent claims 1 and 13 which are all commensurate in scope.
Table I
Independent Claim 1
Examiner’s Interpretation in Light of the Original Disclosure
1. A computer implemented method, comprising:
Preamble reciting a generic method.
(a) detecting an ingestion trigger identifying a data source from which a signal is to be ingested;
¶0051 describes a trigger as a manual trigger, a time-based trigger, a change-based trigger (e.g., change detector 201 which detects that a signal from a data source 102 represents a change to a catalog entry), etc.
¶0032-0034 describe “ingesting” information from the signal by using the original source schema (e.g., the table structure) and key (or identifier) used by source 13. System 17 ingests the information using the original source schema and key (or unique address) assigned by system 14.
(b) obtaining entity data indicative of an entity for which the signal in the data source is to be ingested;
¶0006 describes an entity data as being read from the source system and stored in an entity structure which includes a unique address.
¶0025 describes an entity as any identifiable item such as a piece of hardware or software, a facility, a person, an item of data, etc.
Signal parsing layer 106 can include signal classification system 138 (also described below with respect to FIG. 6), entity extraction system 140 (also described below with respect to FIG. 4), attribute extraction system 142 (also described below with respect to FIG. 5)… Signal processing layer 106 parses the signals read from data sources 102 to identify entities and attributes and decouple the entities from the attributes, which are provided to data object structure generation system 108 (¶0048-0049)
(c) generating an entity data structure as a catalog entry in an electronic catalog;
¶0053 describes creating an entity data structure by extracting at least a minimum set of data from the signal… Data structure generation system 108 then generates or modifies data structures 110 so that those data structures 110 can be stored as entries 148-150 in inventory catalog 152 in data store 112. FIG. 2B shows one depiction of data stored in an entity data structure 164 (¶0058).
(d) populating the entity data structure with the entity data including an entity unique address corresponding to the entity;
¶0070 describes an entity generator that generates an entity data structure and populates that data structure with the entity data.
For instance, correlation model(s) 115 may identify correlations between different entities or attributes and other entities or attributes. Models 115 may be artificial intelligence (AI) models, such as LLM(s), or rules-based models or other models. Cluster models 119 may also be AI models trained to cluster similar data together so that similar data structures in catalog 146 can be clustered together. Such models may be for example, networks that generate embeddings for the data structures in vector space and generate clusters using an approximate nearest neighbor algorithm or another process (¶0054).
(e) receiving the signal from the data source;
FIG. 1B shows that inferencing system 14 receives a signal 15 is received from a source 13 (¶0032).
(f) classifying the signal to identify attribute data indicative of an attribute of the entity;
¶0006 describes a data signal from the data source is read and classified to identify attributes of the entity.
Signal parsing layer 106 can include signal classification system 138 (also described below with respect to FIG. 6), entity extraction system 140 (also described below with respect to FIG. 4), attribute extraction system 142 (also described below with respect to FIG. 5)… Signal processing layer 106 parses the signals read from data sources 102 to identify entities and attributes and decouple the entities from the attributes, which are provided to data object structure generation system 108 (¶0048-0049)
(g) generating an attribute data structure;
¶0053 describes creating an attribute data structure by extracting at least a minimum set of data.
(h) populating the attribute data structure with the attribute data, including an attribute unique address corresponding to the attribute, the attribute unique address indicating that the attribute is an attribute of the entity; and
¶0006, ¶0036 and ¶0037 describe each attribute of the entity is extracted and added to an attribute data structure… each attribute, from each source is classified, and each classification value 25 is given a unique address 26.
(i) storing the attribute data structure as part of the catalog entry.
¶0069 describes storing the entity data structure and attribute data structure(s) representing the data source as an entry in catalog.
The table below represents the Examiner’s Interpretation in light of the original disclosure of independent claim 19.
Table II
Independent Claim 1
Examiner’s Interpretation in Light of the Original Disclosure
19. A method, comprising:
Preamble reciting a generic method.
(a) generating an entity object with at least one processor, the entity object corresponding to an entity in a source of data, in a data store, the entity object having an entity unique address corresponding to the entity;
¶0155 (verbatim)
(b) classifying a data signal, with a classifier implemented by the at least one processor, from the source of data to identify attribute data indicative of an attribute of the entity
¶0156 (verbatim)
(c) generating an attribute object, in the data store, with the attribute data, the attribute data including an attribute unique address corresponding to the attribute and indicating that the attribute is an attribute of the entity.
¶0157 (verbatim)
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1, as a method (process) claim, recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
Examiner concludes claims 1, 13 and 19 do not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Examiner evaluates whether claims 1, 13 and 19 recite an abstract idea based upon the Revised Guidance.
First, Examiner look to the Specification to provide context as to what the claimed invention is directed to (see Tables I-II).
As detailed in Tables I-II, below, Examiner determines that claims 1, 13 and 19, overall, recites mathematical relationship among data structures. This type of activity, i.e., creating data structures that are stored in a what seems to be an indexed/addressable data storage (data store 112- fig. 1D) (without any recitation of a concrete step of performing any task) as recited in each of limitations (a) through (l).
Thus, under Step 2A(i), and under the Revised Guidance, Examiner concludes that claim 1’s computer implemented method for recites a combination of judicial exceptions of mathematical equation and calculation, and thus recites an abstract idea.
In Table III below, Examiner identifies in italics the specific claim limitations in claim 1 that Examiner concludes recite an abstract idea. Examiner, additionally identifies in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations that are generic computer components and techniques.
Table III
Independent Claim 1 as exemplary
Revised Guidance
1. A computer implemented method, comprising:
A process (method) is a statutory subject matter class. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“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”).
Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(b) II
(a) detecting an ingestion trigger identifying a data source from which a signal is to be ingested;
Receiving a signal (i.e. a trigger) to start a desired process is well understood, routine and conventional activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). MPEP 2106.05(d) II
(b) obtaining entity data indicative of an entity for which the signal in the data source is to be ingested;
Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(b) III
Mere data gathering. 2106.05(g)
(c) generating an entity data structure as a catalog entry in an electronic catalog;
A data structure formats data so a computer program or system can use it effectively. Data structures are a fundamental component of computer science because they give form to abstract data points. In this way, they allow users and systems to efficiently organize, work with and store data.
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-structure
A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
(d) populating the entity data structure with the entity data including an entity unique address corresponding to the entity;
A data structure formats data so a computer program or system can use it effectively. Data structures are a fundamental component of computer science because they give form to abstract data points. In this way, they allow users and systems to efficiently organize, work with and store data. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-structure
A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
It is well understood and routine that computer stored data required a unique address (pointer) in memory.
(e) receiving the signal from the data source;
Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(b) III
Mere data gathering. 2106.05(g)
(f) classifying the signal to identify attribute data indicative of an attribute of the entity;
The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
(g) generating an attribute data structure;
A data structure formats data so a computer program or system can use it effectively. Data structures are a fundamental component of computer science because they give form to abstract data points. In this way, they allow users and systems to efficiently organize, work with and store data.
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-structure
A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
(h) populating the attribute data structure with the attribute data, including an attribute unique address corresponding to the attribute, the attribute unique address indicating that the attribute is an attribute of the entity; and
A data structure formats data so a computer program or system can use it effectively. Data structures are a fundamental component of computer science because they give form to abstract data points. In this way, they allow users and systems to efficiently organize, work with and store data.
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-structure
A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
(i) storing the attribute data structure as part of the catalog entry.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2103.05(f)
In Table IV below, Examiner identifies in italics the specific claim limitations in claim 19 that Examiner concludes recite an abstract idea. Examiner, additionally identifies in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations that are generic computer components and techniques.
Table IV
Independent Claim 19
Revised Guidance
19. A method, comprising:
A process (method) is a statutory subject matter class. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“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”).
(j) generating an entity object with at least one processor, the entity object corresponding to an entity in a source of data, in a data store, the entity object having an entity unique address corresponding to the entity;
A data structure formats data so a computer program or system can use it effectively. Data structures are a fundamental component of computer science because they give form to abstract data points. In this way, they allow users and systems to efficiently organize, work with and store data.
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-structure
A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
(k) classifying a data signal, with a classifier implemented by the at least one processor, from the source of data to identify attribute data indicative of an attribute of the entity;
The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
(l) generating an attribute object, in the data store, with the attribute data, the attribute data including an attribute unique address corresponding to the attribute and indicating that the attribute is an attribute of the entity.
A data structure formats data so a computer program or system can use it effectively. Data structures are a fundamental component of computer science because they give form to abstract data points. In this way, they allow users and systems to efficiently organize, work with and store data. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-structure
A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
It is well understood and routine that computer stored data required a unique address (pointer) in memory.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,1 limitations (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (j), (k) and (l) recite steps or functions for creating and storing a data structure.2
Thus, claims 1, 13 and 19 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
If the claims recite a judicial exception, as Examiner conclude above, Examiner proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) in which Examiner determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
As to the specific limitations, limitations (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (j), (k) and (l) recite abstract ideas.
Furthermore, the claims do not operate the recited generic computer components (limitation (a)) in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Examiner find each of the limitations of claim 1 recite abstract ideas as identified in Step 2A(i), supra, and none of the limitations integrate the judicial exception of creating and storing a data structure into a practical application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited above. The claim as a whole merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Under analogous circumstances, the Federal Circuit has held that “[t]his is a quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent: it acknowledges that [such] data . . . was previously collected, analyzed, manipulated, and displayed manually, and it simply proposes doing so with a computer. It was held such claims are directed to abstract ideas.” Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology.”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, on this record, Applicant has not shown an improvement or practical application under the guidance of MPEP section 2106.05(a) (“Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”) or section 2106.05I(“Other Meaningful Limitations”). Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, and thus claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B – “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, and not integrated into a practical application, as noted above, Examiner proceed to the “inventive concept” step. For Step 2B Examiner must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, reviewing court guides that Examiner must “determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method” and thus transform the abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Examiner looks to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79.
Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea3; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer4; or requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.5
Evaluating representative claim 1 under step 2 of the Alice analysis, Examiner concludes it lacks an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea of determining a creating and storing a data structure into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea.
The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact. Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, “[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As evidence of the conventional nature of the recited “computer”, “at least one processor” “computer-implemented catalog” or “data store” in method claims 1, 13 and 19, the Specification discloses:
[0047] FIG. 1D is a block diagram of one example of a mapping and inferencing system architecture 100 in which data can be ingested by system 14 from one or more sources of data 102 into a catalog 146 using data ingestion system 103. FIG. 1 also shows that one or more users 165 can use user computing system 169 to access data ingestion system 183 and catalog 146 through an application programming interface (API) 163 exposed by data ingestion system 103 and/or data store 112, which stores catalog 146.
[0082] The present discussion has mentioned processors and servers. In one example, the processors and servers include computer processors with associated memory and timing circuitry, not separately shown. The processors and servers are functional parts of the systems or devices to which they belong and are activated by, and facilitate the functionality of the other components or items in those systems.
[0091] It will also be noted that architecture 100, or portions of it, can be disposed on a wide variety of different devices. Some of those devices include servers, desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, or other mobile devices, such as palm top computers, cell phones, smart phones, multimedia players, personal digital assistants, etc.
Thus, because the Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, Examiner concludes the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Applicant’s Specification, as quoted above.6
The MPEP, based upon precedential guidance, provides additional considerations with respect to analysis of the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the recited computer-related components.
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
. . . . In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The Supreme Court also discussed this concept in an earlier case, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), where the claim recited a process for converting binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numbers. The Court found that the claimed process had no meaningful practical application except in connection with a computer. Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676. The claim simply stated a judicial exception (e.g., law of nature or abstract idea) while effectively adding words that “apply it” in a computer. Id.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) (“Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception”).
With respect to the Step 2B analysis, Examiner concludes, similar to Alice, the recitation of a method that includes a “computer”, “data store”, “computer-implemented catalog”, “at least one processor”, is simply not enough to transform the patent-ineligible abstract idea here into a patent-eligible invention under Step 2B. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (“[C]laims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Examiner concludes the claims fail the Step 2B analysis because claim 1, in essence, merely recites computer-based elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the determine abstract idea (i.e. mathematical calculation, equations and/or formulas) using the computer-based elements.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing, Examiner concludes, under the Revised Guidance, that each of Applicant’s claims 1-20, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400.
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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
CLIFFORD HILAIRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
1 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, Examiner interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2 The categorization of each of limitations (a) through (l) are abstract ideas, extra-solution activity, well understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components is provided in TABLES III-IV.
3 Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–23.
4 Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23, e.g., simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer.
5 Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (explaining using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions involves computer functions that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities).
6 Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and considering whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054.
Prosecution Insights