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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to filings received 06/24/2024.
Claims 1, 11 & 18 being independent and claims 2-10, 12-17 & 19-20 dependent.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, claims 11-17 are directed to a system, and claims 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Accordingly, the claims fall within the statutory categories of process, machine, and manufacture under 35 USC 101.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, representative independent claim 1 recites steps including:
receiving a data structure comprising a plurality of fields and a corresponding plurality of values according to a data type of a plurality of data types for a policy;
selecting from a plurality of configurations corresponding to the plurality of data types, a configuration based on the data type of the data structure, the configuration identifying at least one of the plurality of fields to be validated for transmission;
identifying from the plurality of fields of the data structure, a field in accordance with the configuration;
determining that a value of the plurality of values corresponding to the field is not valid;
generating an indication identifying the data structure defining the policy as restricted due to the value of the field,
responsive to determining that the value is not valid; and
performing an action, responsive to the indication to restrict transmission of the data structure.
These steps describe collecting information, analyzing information, and making a determination based on the analysis, followed by indicating a result. Such operations constitute mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., reviewing policy data fields, determining whether values satisfy validation rules, and deciding whether transmission should be permitted).
Mental processes are identified by the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance as a category of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Independent claims 11 & 18 recite limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1, implemented in the form of a system and a computer-readable medium, respectively. These claims similarly recite collecting information, evaluating the information according to rules, and determining an outcome regarding whether transmission should occur.
Therefore, claims 11 and 18 also recite the abstract idea of mental processes.
Under Step 2A, Prong two, the additional elements recited in the claims include
one or more processors
memory
a policy administration system
a user interface
a network
data structures
These elements represent generic computer components performing conventional data processing functions, such as receiving data, processing data according to rules, and generating an output. The claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea of validating information and deciding whether transmission should occur.
The claims do not:
improve the functioning of the computer itself
improve another technology or technical field
apply the abstract idea using a particular machine in a meaningful way
effect a transformation of an article
Instead, the claims simply automate the evaluation of a policy data values and the determination of whether data should be transmitted. Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, including processors, memory, policy administration systems, user interfaces, and network; are described at a high level of generality and perform well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as:
receiving data
processing information
validating values
generating indications
transmitting data across network
These generic computer functions merely implement the abstract idea using conventional computing technology and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and add limitations relating to:
validating additional values (claim 2)
executing requests or transmitting data (claim 3)
selecting configurations based on request types (claim 4)
providing indication via a user interface (claim 5)
defining fields and values in the data structure (claim 6-9)
applying the validation to a vehicle policy (claim 10)
These additional limitations merely provide additional data evaluation rules, data field relationships, or contextual applications of the same abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. accordingly, claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claims 12-17 depend from independent claim 11 and recite limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2-9, including validating additional values, identifying request types, and evaluating relationships between fields and values. These limitations similarly involve additional instances of analyzing data and determining whether values are valid, which remain part of the same abstract idea. Thus, claims 12-17 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Dependent claims 19-20 depend from independent claim 18 and recite additional validation operations and configuration selection steps similar to those recited in claims 2 and 4. These limitations likewise represent additional data analysis steps within the same abstract idea. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
For the above reasoning, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by David Clemens et al. (US 2024/0086409 A1, herein Clemens).
As per claim 1, Clemens teaches a method of validating data to be transmitted across networked environments, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a policy administration system, a data structure comprising a plurality of fields and a corresponding plurality of values according to a data type of a plurality of data types for a policy, the plurality of values having a subset of values generated via a user interface provided by the policy administration system (Clemens ¶¶ [106-108]);
selecting, by the one or more processors, from a plurality of configurations corresponding to the plurality of data types, a configuration based on the data type of the data structure, the configuration identifying at least one of the plurality of fields to be validated for transmission to a network (Clemens ¶¶ [109-110]);
identifying, by the one or more processors, from the plurality of fields of the data structure, a field in accordance with the configuration (Clemens ¶¶ [124-125]);
determining, by the one or more processors, that a value of the plurality of values corresponding to the field is not valid (Clemens ¶¶ [109, 118 & 144]);
generating, by the one or more processors, an indication identifying the data structure defining the policy as restricted from transmission to the network due to the value of the field, responsive to determining that the value is not valid (Clemens ¶¶ [114 & 118]); and
performing, by the one or more processors, an action, responsive to the indication to restrict transmission of the data structure to the network (Clemens ¶¶ [118 & 144]).
As per claim 2, Clemens teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: Clemens further teaches:
determining, by the one or more processors, that a second value of a second plurality of values corresponding to a second field of a second data structure defining a second policy is valid; generating, by the one or more processors, a second indication identifying the second data structure defining the second policy as permitted to be transmitted to the network, responsive to determining that the second value is valid; and performing, by the one or more processors, a second action, responsive to the second indication to permit transmission of the second data structure to the network (Clemens ¶¶ [118, 120-121 & 132]).
As per claim 3, Clemens teaches the method of claim 2, Clemens further teaches:
wherein performing the second action further comprises: executing a request associated with the policy, in accordance with the data structure defining the policy; and transmitting, to a computing device, the second data structure defining the second policy (Clemens ¶¶ [100 & 117]).
As per claim 4, Clemens teaches the method of claim 1, Clemens further teaches:
wherein selecting the configuration further comprises selecting the configuration identifying a first request type for which the field of the plurality of fields is to be validated for transmission, and further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that a second request type associated with the data structure matches the first request type identified by the policy, and wherein identifying the field further comprises identifying the field, responsive to determining that the second request type matches the first request type (Clemens ¶¶ [109 & 125]).
As per claim 5, Clemens teaches the method of claim 1, Clemens further teaches:
wherein performing the action further comprises: providing, via the user interface, the indication identifying the field of the plurality of fields corresponding to the value as invalid; and restricting, from transmission to a computing device, transmission of the data structure defining the policy (Clemens ¶¶ [114 & 118]).
As per claim 6, Clemens teaches the method of claim 1, Clemens further teaches:
wherein receiving the data structure further comprises receiving the data structure comprising (i) the plurality of fields including (a) a first field and (b) a second field and (ii) the corresponding plurality of values including (a) a first value corresponding to the first field and (b) a second value corresponding to the second field, the first value inputted via the user interface, the second value generated using the first value in accordance with the second field (Clemens ¶¶ [108 & 114]).
As per claim 7, Clemens teaches the method of claim 1, Clemens further teaches:
wherein determining that the value is not valid further comprises: identifying, from the plurality of values of the data structure, a second value corresponding to second field of the plurality of fields in accordance with the configuration, the second value being part of the subset of values; and determining that the value is not valid based on consistency between the value and the second value (Clemens ¶¶ [77 & 127]).
As per claim 8, Clemens teaches the method of claim 1, Clemens further teaches:
wherein determining that the value is not valid further comprises determining that value of the plurality of values corresponds to a null value (Clemens ¶ [109]).
As per claim 9, Clemens teaches the method of claim 1, Clemens further teaches:
wherein identifying the field further comprise identifying, from the plurality of fields in accordance with the configuration, the field corresponding to at least one of a remaining subset of values of the plurality of values generated using one or more of the subset of values (Clemens ¶¶ [118 & 132]).
As per claim 10, Clemens teaches the method of claim 1, Clemens further teaches:
wherein receiving the data structure further comprises receiving the data structure comprising the plurality of fields and the corresponding plurality of values for the policy associated with a vehicle, the plurality of fields comprising at least one field identifying the vehicle (Clemens ¶ [69]).
As per claims 11 & 18, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 1 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 2 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 4 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 5 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 6 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 7 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 8 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 19, Clemens teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 18, Clemens further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining that a second value of a second plurality of values corresponding to a second field of a second data structure defining a second policy is valid; generating a second indication identifying the second data structure defining the second policy as permitted to be transmitted to the network, responsive to determining that the second value is valid; and performing a second action, responsive to the second indication to permit transmission of the second data structure to the network (Clemens ¶¶ [118, 120-121 & 132]).
As per claim 20, Clemens teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 18, Clemens further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: selecting the configuration identifying a first request type for which the field of the plurality of fields is to be validated for transmission; determining that a second request type associated with the data structure matches the first request type identified by the policy, and identifying the field, responsive to determining that the second request type matches the first request type (Clemens ¶¶ [109 & 125]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696