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
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 Abstract Idea in regard to claims 1-20 have been considered, however are not found to be persuasive due to the following reasons. Under Step 2A, prong one, the claims recite the abstract process of receiving a request, determining the requested change, selecting an applicable policy, generating instructions for the change, presenting the proposed change for approval, and applying it after approval. Applicant is correct that physically creating and deleting a virtual data container cannot practically be performed in the human mind, but that does not mean the claim as a whole contains no abstract idea. Those limitations are more appropriately considered as additional elements under prong two. The specification itself describes the LLM as identifying the user’s intent, the orchestrator as selecting agents based on that intent, and the update agent as creating update queries and obtaining final confirmation (see Spec. [0018] [0027] [0035] [0038-0041] [0047-0052]).
Under Step 2A, prong two, Applicant’s technical improvement agreement is also not persuasive because the amended claims do not actually require the particular implementation that the specification identifies as providing the asserted memory improvement. The specification states that the virtual container “only holds the changed data cells and not the full dataset,” thereby significantly reducing the required memory footprint (see Spec. [0019] [0044]). But amended claims merely require a virtual container “comprising a subset of a data structure”; it does not require that the container contain only changed data cells, exclude the remainder of the dataset, use less memory, or employ any particular memory-management technique. The specification otherwise describes the claimed process more generally as creating an “isolated environment,” copying relevant data into it, applying the update, displaying the result for approval, committing the result after confirmation and removing the container (see Spec. [0052] [0061-0063] [0068-0074] [0098-0100]). The asserted improvement in data integrity similarly results from performing a proposed update on isolated data before committing it to the original – a safeguard supporting the underlying update and approval process – rather than from a claimed improvement in the manner computer store or process data. Accordingly, the claims use computer technology to implement the abstract process rather than reciting a specific technological improvement to computer functionality.
Finally, Applicant’s BASCOM/Step 2B argument does not establish eligibility merely because the limitations are considered as an ordered combination. The combination still amounts to determining an update intent, selecting an applicable policy, generating an update, staging that update in temporary isolated storage, displaying it for approval, committing it upon confirmation, and deleting the temporary container. The specification describes the supporting computer environment broadly: the components may be implemented in software executed by a processor and the machine may employ ordinary processors, memory, storage, displays, input devices, and network interfaces (see Spec. [0045] [0103-0109]). The specification’s description of asserted benefits does not itself demonstrate that the claimed ordered combination supplies an inventive concept, particularly where the claimed virtual container is defined primarily by its functional role in staging, previewing, committing, and deleting an update. Thus, provided the step 2B conventionality findings are properly supported, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection, and the amended claims remain rejected under 101.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites the abstract process of receiving a request to change information, determining the intended change, selecting an applicable policy, generating instructions for making the change, presenting the proposed change for review, receiving approval, and then making the approved change. These are fundamentally information-processing and decision-making activities that can be characterized as mental processes or administrative data-management activities. The use of an AI processor, LLM, policy library, and automated data update agent primarily automates these abstract activities and does not, by itself, make the underlying process patent eligible.
Under Step 2A, prong two, the virtual data container limitations do not sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims require creating an isolated virtual container containing a subset of the data structure, executing the proposed update in that container without modifying the original data, displaying the modified subset for review, committing the update after receiving user approval, and then after receiving user approval, and then deleting the container. Although these limitations provide a computerized environment for safely previewing a proposed update, the claims do not recite a particular technical mechanism for creating the isolation, controlling memory, performing the data copy, implementing the commit operation, or otherwise improving the operation of the computer or database itself. Instead, the virtual container functions as a temporary staging area that allows the proposed change to be reviewed before it is applied to the actual data. Thus, the additional limitations facilitate the abstract review and approval process rather than reciting a specific improvement to computer technology.
Under Step 2B, the claims also do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The non-transitory medium, processor, user interface, AI processor, LLM, policy library, automated agent, data structure, and virtual container perform their ordinary data-processing functions of receiving, analyzing, selecting, generating, temporarily modifying, displaying, committing, and deleting information. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims essentially uses computer technology to interpret a data update request, apply a policy, stage and preview the proposed update. The claims therefore do not recite an inventive concept that transforms the abstract information management process into patent-eligible subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further recite an abstract idea performable by a human and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps other than what is conventionally known in updating data systems.
Claims 2, 9 and 16, a basic information analysis, not a technical computer improvement.
Claims 3, 10 and 17, just a data lookup and matching, not an improvement to computer technology.
Claims 4, 11 and 18, an ordinary rule-based decision making on a computer.
Claims 5, 12 and 19, a management logic for information processing, not a specific technical improvement.
Claim 6, 13 and 20, organizing and reusing information, not improving the computer itself.
Claims 7 and 14, an ordinary data handling unless the claim explains a specific technical improvement in memory, database operation, or computer performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the Applicant can overcome the 101 Abstract Idea rejection set forth.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dzeparoska et al. (“LLM-based policy generation for intent-based management of applications”; 2023) teaches an LLM pipeline that classifies intents, progressively decomposes intents into policies, maps policies to APIs and executes those APIs in a closed-loop management workflow. (see [Section III. Methodology A and B] [Fig. 1])
Prasad et al. (US 2022/0014436) teaches receiving user intent statements via a user interface, translating those intent statements into policies, storing, the policies in a policy store, and enforcing the policies via network agents. (see [Fig. 1] [claim 10] [0026-0032] [0067-0070])
Ho et al. (US 10,169,401) teaches a preview/branch copy of a data set, updating/filtering that copy, displaying the changed preview copy to the user and then applying the preview changes to the original data set upon a save/commit selection. (see [Figs. 6-8] [col. 5 line 49 to col. 9 line 55])
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Dzeparoska, Prasad nor Ho explicitly teach select a data update policy from a policy library based on the determined data update intent; and deleting the virtual data container.
Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Dzeparoska, Prasad and/or Ho to include select a data update policy from a policy library based on the determined data update intent; and deleting the virtual data container.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYANS A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PST.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
SHREYANS A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2653
/SHREYANS A PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights