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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the instant application. Claims 7 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 20 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
101
Regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101, as stated in the prior Office Action, the examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments, but does not find them to be persuasive. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see at least MPEP 2106.05(a) Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Examples that the courts have indicated may show an improvement in computer-functionality:
i. A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07;
ii. Inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. A method of rendering a halftone digital image, Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868-69, 97 USPQ2d 1274, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010);
iv. A distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records, Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1536-37 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A memory system having programmable operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a tradeoff in processor performance, Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
vi. Technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614-15, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding the claims ineligible because they fail to provide requisite technical details necessary to carry out the function);
vii. Particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 (finding the use of a generic server insufficient to add inventive concepts to an abstract idea);
PNG
media_image1.png
27
30
media_image1.png
Greyscale
viii. A particular way of programming or designing software to create menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
ix. A method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
xi. Specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers; Data Engine Techs., LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1009, 128 USPQ2d 1381, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and
xii. A specific method of restricting software operation within a license, Ancora Tech., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1345-46, 128 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
PNG
media_image1.png
27
30
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As currently recited, the pending claims recite wherein “applying the selected variance distribution mode to the attribute of the subscription model further comprises redistributing the variance, using the selected variance distribution mode, to the attribute of the subscription model to correct the attribute rounding error”, which can be performed mentally, in conjunction with a generic computing device and common computer elements. The correction of the attribute rounding errors is a mathematical process that is implemented by a computing device and is found to be insufficient constitute eligibility in view of MPEP 2106.04 guidance. For at least the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final.
102
The arguments and amendments as submitted by Applicant have been considered by the examiner, but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under 2106.03 Eligibility step 1, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-6 and 8-10 are directed to a method, claims 11-16 and 18-19 are directed to an apparatus, and claims 20-22 are directed towards a computer program product for multi modal data distribution in an information processing system, each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A:
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception by referring to the groupings of subject matter. 2106.04, certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a method for multi modal data distribution in an information processing system, in the following limitations:
computing, at a first processing node of an information processing system in accordance with a subscription model managed by the first processing node, a variance in an attribute of the subscription model with respect to a second processing node of the information processing system;
receiving, at the first processing node from the second processing node, a selection of a variance distribution mode from a plurality of variance distribution modes; and
applying, at the first processing node, the selected variance distribution mode to the attribute of the subscription model,
wherein applying the selected variance distribution mode to the attribute of the subscription model further comprises redistributing the variance, using the selected variance distribution mode, to the attribute of the subscription model to correct the attribute rounding error.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to apply variance distribution data to a subscription model. This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A (prong 2), the next step in the eligibility analysis looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
a first processing node
a digital commerce system
an information processing system
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims 11 and 20 and dependent claims 2-6 and 8-10 and 12-16, 18, 19, 11, and 22 also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
a first processing node
a digital commerce system
an information processing system
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wijetunge et al (US 2018/0183939).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a method comprising: computing, at a first processing node of an information processing system in accordance with a subscription model managed by the first processing node (see at least paragraph [0023] to Wijetunge et al), a variance in an attribute of the subscription model with respect to a second processing node of the information processing system (see at least paragraph [0038] to Wijetunge et al); receiving, at the first processing node from the second processing node, a selection of a variance distribution mode from a plurality of variance distribution modes (see at least paragraph [0017] to Wijetunge et al); and applying, at the first processing node, the selected variance distribution mode to the attribute of the subscription model (see at least paragraph [0006] to Wijetunge et al).
Wijetunge et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the variance in the attribute of the subscription model comprises an attribute rounding error; and
wherein applying the selected variance distribution mode to the attribute of the subscription model further comprises redistributing the variance, using the selected variance distribution mode, to the attribute of the subscription model to correct the attribute rounding error.
However, Cornea-Hasegan discloses systems and methods to correct for double rounding errors when rounding floating point numbers to nearest even, wherein the variance in the attribute of the subscription model comprises an attribute rounding error; and
wherein applying the selected variance distribution mode to the attribute of the subscription model further comprises redistributing the variance, using the selected variance distribution mode, to the attribute of the subscription model to correct the attribute rounding error (see at least paragraph [0044] to Cornea-Hasegan et al, wherein The execution of elements 265, 270, 275, and 280 may provide correct indicators for the two-step rounding process used to calculate res2. In effect, they provide the indicators that would result from directly rounding from res0 to res2. The correct indicators may be useful in case further rounding is needed, such as to represent res2 in a normalized form. For example, suppose a calculation produces 231.times.10.sup.-5, but the largest negative exponent permitted in the floating point representation is -3. Then res2 must be rewritten as a one digit number.times.10.sup.-3. The rewriting requires rounding 2.3 to a one digit number. These elements of flowchart 200 are carried out only when the test in element 240 fails; that is, does not disclose a double rounding error. In some embodiments, however, the rounding indicators may also be corrected when a double rounding error has been corrected).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for detecting anomalies in consumption of data and charging of data services, as disclosed by Wijetunge et al and the systems and methods to correct for double rounding errors when rounding floating point numbers to nearest even, as taught by Cornea-Hasegan, in order to correct pricing rounding errors that could result in profit loss, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of variance distribution modes comprise a first variance normalizing mode, a second variance normalizing mode, a third variance normalizing mode, and a fourth variance normalizing mode (see at least paragraph [0058] to Wijetunge et al).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the first variance normalizing mode further comprises distributing the variance over a plurality of distribution sets such that the variance is evenly distributed from a first distribution set to a second to last distribution set of the plurality of distribution sets, and a remainder of the variance is distributed in a last distribution set of the plurality of distribution sets (see at least paragraph [0058] to Wijetunge et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second variance normalizing mode further comprises distributing the variance over a plurality of distribution sets such that the variance is evenly distributed from a first distribution set to a distribution set before a middle distribution set of the plurality of distribution sets, evenly distributed from a distribution set after the middle distribution set to a last distribution set of the plurality of distribution sets, and a remainder of the variance is distributed in the middle distribution set (see at least paragraph [0060] to Wijetunge et al).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the third variance normalizing mode further comprises distributing the variance over a plurality of distribution sets such that the variance is evenly distributed from a second distribution set to a last distribution set of the plurality of distribution sets, and a remainder of the variance is distributed in a first distribution set of the plurality of distribution sets (see at least paragraph [0023] to Wijetunge et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the fourth variance normalizing mode further comprises distributing the variance over a plurality of distribution sets such that the variance is approximately evenly distributed from a first distribution set to a last distribution set of the plurality of distribution sets(see at least paragraph [0031] to Wijetunge et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute to which the selected variance distribution mode is applied by the first processing node comprises an attribute rounding error (see at least paragraph [0096] to Wijetunge et al).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the attribute rounding error occurs in the subscription model in response to a change in an initial attribute value (see at least paragraph [0096] to Wijetunge et al).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information processing system comprises a digital commerce system (see at least paragraph [0005] to Wijetunge et al).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first processing node is associated with a provider entity in the digital commerce system and the second processing node is associated with a consumer entity in the digital commerce system (see at least paragraph [0018] to Wijetunge et al).
Claims 11-18 and 18-22 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights