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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-11, 13-17, 19-21
Claims 1-11, 13-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing a mental process and statistical/mathematical calculations without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-11, 13-16, 21 describe a system, claims 17, 19 describe a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and claim 20 describes a method, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-11, 13-16, 21
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites receiving input defining a validation point comprising validation functions applicable to source and network data stored in a semantic network, and receiving rules for applying the results of the functions, importing given source data, and populating the semantic network. The examiner interprets this as merely collecting data, and filling a network of nodes and links, which could be a diagram. The claim also recites executing the validation point, and determining, from the results, whether the validation is satisfied or not, and revising if not. While the claim also cites computer components, the components are recited at a high level. The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “executing” step is interpreted as generic, mathematical concept. As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims 2-11 each recite an abstract idea.
Claims 2-6 recite more data analysis and mathematical calculations.
Claims 7-8, 10 recite more data collection, mathematical concepts thereon, and the mental process of analyzing the results.
Claim 9 recites storing the functions, which could be on a computer or on paper.
Claims 11 recites displaying the resultant data from the mathematical concepts, which could also be on paper or using a high-level computer display.
Claims 13-15 merely recite the types of mathematical concepts without detail.
Claim 16 merely recites alerting a second station using visualization, which is also interpreted as a generic computing system, but could also be performed on paper and mailed to second client station.
Claim 21 recites displaying the data being responsible for the non-satisfied result.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites a computing system comprising a network interface, processor and a medium. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 also recites steps of receiving data, populating a semantic network, performing generic mathematical concepts, and data analysis/determination from the results, and visualization. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, analysis of a mathematical concept, and analyzing/displaying of calculation results, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 2-11, 13-16, 21 merely recite more data collection and certain types of data and mathematical calculations and evaluations performed on the data. The mathematical calculations and evaluations describe mathematical concepts that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The processors and data storage devices recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of object information, analysis/display of calculation results, describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 17, 19
Claims 17, 19 contain limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which are similar to the limitations for the system specified in claims 1-11, 13-16, 21 respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 for claims 17, 19 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-11, 13-16, 21.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites the additional elements of a “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by at least one processor of a computing system to cause the computing system to…” The computer-readable storage medium and processor cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The enabling of the processors to troubleshoot a performance problem recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Step 2 Analysis for Claim 20
Claim 20 contain limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the system specified in claims 1-11, 13-16, 21, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claim 20 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-11, 13-16, 21.
In light of the above, the limitations in claim 20 recites and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/25 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to the Double Patenting and art rejections, the applicant has amended the independent claims with the matter of prior claim 12 as to overcome these rejections.
With respect to the USC 101 rejection, the applicant has argued current claim language overcomes the rejection, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant argues, on page 11 of the Remarks, that, firstly, the claims cannot be practically performed in the mind and is an inherently technological process. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as presented, are merely using a computer to collect, present, and organize data that could be performed with the human mind and is using a computer as a tool for said performance. There is nothing in the claims that necessitates a computer other than just as an aid for a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIIC.
Secondly, the applicant argues, on pages 11-16 of the Remarks, that the claims are now presented as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner interprets the claims as merely being executed by a computer rather than being designed for actual computer errors and resolutions. The applicant has argued and presented passages from the current Specification as to what the “digital duplicate” comprises and how the current invention uses this structure to present various representations of business entities for human understanding. The examiner interprets these passages and how the current invention is an improvement over the existing models as merely an improvement of an abstract idea, but still an abstract idea. The claims are merely comparing data and conditions to a rules tree to further organize and present the data. The “resolving”, as now claimed, is not resolving an actual error, but merely an input data that fails a condition. The “resolving” step would be beneficial if it were resolving an actual computer/system error or transforming the computer based on the process. As claimed now, the process is merely an abstract idea that could be used to transform a technology or device in the future, but is not currently being performed.
Thirdly, the applicant has argued, on page 16 of the Remarks, that the claims provide a technical improvement of prior art. As stated above, the examiner does not interpret the claims as a technical improvement other than an improvement over prior, abstract ideas. There is no improvement to an actual system and an improvement to a technological field is not claimed and the Specification recites the claims can be used in various technological fields. The examiner interprets this as explicitly teaching the claims are directed to an idea and the implementation of an idea rather than any application of the idea to a specific technological field other than data analysis.
Conclusion
4. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113