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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on June 29, 2026, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and the cancellation of claims 10 and 20.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues the 101 analysis does not satisfy the requirement to recite an abstract idea and the enumerated grouping, and then argues that virtually every limitation falls into two groupings simultaneously.
The Examiner notes in the Office Action, 2A-Prong 1 analysis, after specific analysis of the independent claims and a more general analysis of the dependent claims, the Office Action states that, “Each of these claimed limitations employ abstract ideas including methods of organizing human activity to include fundamental economic principles or practices, calculating costs; managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions and employing mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.”
The Examiner will point out that applications employing processors to perform certain actions based on data are frequently required to perform functions to include determining, predicting, evaluating, detecting, obtaining, initiating, triggering, responding, and processing, to name a few. The underlying processes behind each of these actions include both following rules or instructions from the “organizing human activity” category, and observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, from “mental processes.” For a processor to obtain data, process data, or determine insights absent of rules or instructions governing analytical operations, or make a determination without an analytical equivalent of the mental processes incorporated into its programming, the processor would add no value to the invention. The two grouping noted are simply those most commonly identified in the claims as abstract ideas. This is an analytical approach for making a determination of abstract ideas, and then requires disclosure of a practical application to achieve subject matter eligibility.
The applicant additionally argues that the scans and analysis conducted by the invention cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The Examiner acknowledges that scans of automation feeds are beyond practical human capabilities, but it appears that the scans are routine and known functions performed by computers. It is not apparent that an inventive concept applies to the scans listed.
The applicant finally argues an improvement to the technology by reconciliation of heterogeneous software-as-a-service (SaaS) usage telemetry and the architecture that delivers this improvement. The problems cited in [0076-0078] appear to disclose business operations or workflow problems and not technical problems. It appears that the invention performs scans and based on what is observed will change scans to deal with differences in the data, then drawing off metrics from that data and providing the metrics to customers for business insight. Certainly providing insight into the usage of cloud/internet resources can be helpful for business operations, but the technical improvements to the functioning of a computer are not apparent. Improvements cited point to support response times related to making decisions around SaaS and driving business operations and the user experience.
Applicant argues the technological solution recited in amended claim 1 is a specific architecture, but any detailed technical descriptions of the architecture appear limited to only those presented in the claims, and no diagram of the architecture is disclosed. As a result, arguments of a practical application based on a technological improvement involving architecture are not compelling.
For the reasons stated, the request to withdraw rejections under 35 U.S.C § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant argues that amended claims overcome prior art both in identity provider login and employment of three specific scans in the invention’s data collection process. The Examiner agrees and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-9, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-9, 11-19 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-9, 11-19 are directed to a process (method) and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-9, 11-19 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of determining insights on the use of applications, infrastructure, and on employees based on data from application usage in a cloud-based environment.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A method comprising steps of:
obtaining data associated with any of applications, infrastructure, and employees of a tenant organization, a plurality of tenant organizations with the applications, infrastructure, and employees each assigned thereto, wherein the obtaining comprises initiating, at least one of (i) a validation scan, (ii) a periodic scan, or (iii) a catchup scan for the tenant organization, and wherein the validation scan verifies whether an onboarded application of the tenant organization is reachable. The periodic scan is triggered at a preconfigured time interval to collect usage metrics for one or more previously validated applications of the tenant organization, and the catchup scan backfills the usage metrics for the one or more previously validated applications for up to a threshold number of prior days, the catchup scan being triggered responsive to the periodic scan lagging or responsive to a new application being onboarded; the obtaining further comprising to execute the at least one scan of an application associated with the tenant organization and to return scan results including the usage metrics tagged with metadata including at least user identity, time and further comprising obtaining login data for one or more applications of the tenant organization; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
processing the data associated with the tenant organization to determine a plurality of insights, wherein, when multiple sources of usage data are available for a given application of the tenant organization the processing comprises selecting from among the multiple sources, a data source having a highest confidence as a default data source, and wherein at least one insight comprises determining active users and inactive users for the given application over a selected time period based on the login data, the active users comprising users provisioned to the given application that during the selected time period and the inactive users comprising users provisioned to the given application for the given application during the selected time period; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
displaying the plurality of insights on a per-tenant-organization basis based on the processing, including providing an engagement chart for the given application, comprising
a stacked area time-series graphical representation of the active users and the inactive users over the selected time period, the engagement chart further including, when available, a number of purchased seats and a number of assigned seats overlaid on the stacked area as lines, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations disclose more of the method, to include usage data for tenant organizations, and scheduling the periodic scan in a staggered manner, (claim 2), providing a graphical representation of application usage in the tenant organization, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 3), wherein the usage data includes application license data, and wherein the application license data includes a number of active and inactive users associated with the one or more applications of the tenant organization (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 4), displaying a savings opportunity associated with the one or more applications of the tenant organization based on the application license data, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 5), wherein the savings opportunity is associated with a specific application, or all applications associated with the tenant organization, (claim 6), wherein the data includes certification and compliance data associated with one or more applications of the tenant organization, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 7), wherein the data includes productivity data associated with the employees of the tenant organization, and wherein the displaying includes providing a graphical representation of productivity for different locations associated with the tenant organization, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 8), wherein the data includes location data associated with the employees of the tenant organization, and wherein the displaying includes providing a graphical representation of office utilization for the tenant organization, based on usage and distance information, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 9),
Each of these claimed limitations involve the application of abstract ideas to include organizing human activity by following rules or instructions, and/or employ mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Claims 11-19 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-9.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-9, 11-19 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-9, 11-19 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a cloud-based system associated with any of applications, infrastructure, and employees of a tenant organization, a scan scheduler communicatively coupled to a connector service, an application programming interface, a catchup scan being triggered automatically, an application connector, an identity-provider, multiple sources including at least two of (i) the application connector via the application programming interface, (ii) an identity provider, and (iii) inline traffic from the cloud-based system, authenticated through the identity provider for the given application, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-9, 11-19 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-9, 11-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-9, 11-19 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 11 are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Dependent claims
2-9, and 12-19 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1 and 11.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Davies, (US 20220327172 A1), “Evaluation and Recommendation Engine for a Remote Network Management Platform,” and Deodhar, (US 20170116552 A1), “System and Method to Measure, Aggregate and Analyzed Exact Effort and Time Productivity.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding claim 1, Davies teaches, A method comprising steps of:
obtaining data from a cloud-based system associated with any of applications,
infrastructure, and employees of a tenant organization, wherein the cloud-based system
includes a plurality of tenant organizations with the applications, infrastructure, and
employees each assigned thereto, wherein the obtaining comprises initiating, by a scan
scheduler, (providing mechanisms through which telemetry data can be collected from a computational instance of a cloud-based remote network management platform that is used by an enterprise. The data sources for the telemetry data might be one or more database tables, configuration files, log files, and/or user profiles, and may represent key performance indicators (KPIs) and/or metrics of the computational instance, [0002], a cloud-based remote network management platform that is used by an enterprise [0002], often has dozens or hundreds of these custom software applications. Nonetheless, the advantages provided by the embodiments herein are not limited to large enterprises and may be applicable to an enterprise, or any other type of organization, of any size. [0030], the concept of Application Platform as a Service (aPaaS) is introduced, to intelligently automate workflows throughout the enterprise. An aPaaS system is hosted remotely from the enterprise, but may access data, applications, and services, [0033], and may support development and execution of model-view-controller (MVC) applications. [ ] These applications may be web-based, and offer create, read, update, and delete(CRUD) capabilities. This allows new applications to be built on a common application infrastructure, [0034] and the enterprise data platform API may allow the telemetry application to request this usage data per application. For a given period of time (e.g., an hour, day, week, or month) and application, the usage data may include a number of users that accessed the application, [0132], and discovery may proceed in four logical phases: scanning, classification, identification, and exploration. Each phase of discovery involves various types of probe messages being transmitted by proxy servers 312 to one or more devices in managed network, [0099],
Davies does not teach the scans or functions specified, communicatively coupled to a connector service, at least one of (i) a validation scan, (ii) a periodic scan, or (iii) a catchup scan for the tenant organization, and wherein the validation scan verifies whether an onboarded application of the tenant organization is reachable via an application programming interface, the periodic scan is triggered at a preconfigured time interval to collect usage metrics for one or more previously validated applications of the tenant organization, and the catchup scan backfills the usage metrics for the one or more previously validated applications for up to a threshold number of prior days, the catchup scan being triggered automatically responsive to the periodic scan lagging or responsive to a new application being onboarded;
Davies teaches the obtaining further comprising invoking the application connector to execute the at least one scan via the application programming interface of an application associated with the tenant organization and to return scan results including the usage metrics tagged with metadata including at least user identity, time, and application identifier, but Davies does not teach further comprising obtaining identity-provider login data for one or more applications of the tenant organization lacking the application connector…
None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights