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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 and 21 were pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection(s) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The claims do not recite a judicial exception and instead recite error source identification and subsequent data modification.
The Office asserts that even if the claims were directed to such they would still recite an abstract idea since the error source identification and subsequent modification are directed to errors in program instructions, i.e., data. In such a case the claims would be directed to a mental process that can be performed by a human using pen and paper.
Fixing a data error in a computer system is also not a commercial interaction.
The Office asserts that fixing a data error is an abstract idea such as a mental
process. Confining the data error to a computer system is merely a field of use application.
The orchestrator and participant devices are not generic but define specific architectural roles.
The Office asserts that the devices are generic because they are defined merely
by what they do rather than what they are, i.e., the devices are merely programmed to perform specific functions but specific programming does not make a generic device particular.
Locally stored paper/manual files do not account for the full scope of the operations recited. The orchestration device remotely accesses operation data that is stored locally on participant devices.
The Office asserts that this is no more than data gathering as is shown below in
the rejection.
Claims are directed to a specific practical application of finding errors in data and modifying those errors to allow system execution to continue without propagating configuration errors.
The Office asserts that continuing system execution without propagating
configuration errors is merely a stated outcome which does not exist in the claims and the errors are not specified and the process for modifying them is not specifically stated. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), 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. 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. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible.
In the present case the specification does not provide sufficient detail to support the applicant’s assertion.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
A computer-implemented method for error source identification, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by an orchestrator device, an error notification associated with a payment process that includes operations by a first participant device and a second participant device, wherein the orchestrator device stores a plurality of payment process configurations locally but does not locally store payment process configurations modified for participant devices:
accessing, by the orchestrator device, first operation data stored locally by the first participant device, wherein the first operation data comprises a first payment process configuration modified for the first participant device;
accessing, by the orchestrator device, second operation data stored locally by
the second participant device, wherein the second operation data comprises a second payment process configuration modified for the second participant device;
determining, by the orchestrator device, an error source in either the first payment process configuration modified for the first participant device or the second payment process configuration modified for the second participant device based upon the first operation data and the second operation data; and
modifying, by the orchestrator device, a payment process configuration of the plurality of payment process configurations based upon the determined error source.
The underlined elements represent certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions because the claims are directed toward facilitating payments.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is implemented using computers including an orchestration device and participant devices which are generically recited, adding the words “apply it”, or the like, to the abstract idea. The claims also include a limitation defining the modified configurations as not being stored locally at the orchestration device however, this is insignificant extra-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
Per MPEP 2106.05(g), extra-solution activity includes activities incidental to the primary process that is merely incidental or tangential to the claim. The cited pre-solution activity is similar to the example above in that it is a data gathering step in a process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered data to detect and address a fault or aberration.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the reasons above and because the insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine and conventional per the prior art of Ukis in para. 0009 which recites, “As an alternative to local storage of the configuration data, it is known practice, for example from US 2003/0182403 A1, to provide configuration data outside of the DP appliance in one or more external configuration sources.”
Claims 8 and 15 are similarly rejected. Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory with computer-readable instructions. Claim 15 is directed an apparatus comprising means. Each claim comprises generically recited elements amounting to adding the words “apply it” as cited above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and as a whole and, in combination, merely comprise the abstract idea with the words “apply it”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights