DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 09/09/2024 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: those claims include dashes, and it is unclear if they are indicating order. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1:
Line 5 recites “the data” which lacks antecedent basis.
Line 8 recites “the data” but it is unclear if this data refers to data in line 5 or 7.
As per claims 8 and 9 (line numbers refer to claim 8):
Line 2 recites “the given polling frequency lies in a range of 1 second to 86400 seconds” but the unit of frequency is hertz which is the inverse of time. Therefore, it is unclear how frequency can be in the range of 1 second to 86400 seconds.
As per claim 11:
Lines 3-5 recite “process data of a given category for obtaining information pertaining to at least a sub-system wherefrom said data is polled, a metric represented by said data, a value or a status of the metric, and a pipeline of said data” but it is unclear how “a metric represented by said data, a value or a status of the metric, and a pipeline of said data” is connected to the previous part of the limitation.
Line 7 recites “the sub-system” and it is unclear if this refers to “at least a sub-system”.
Claims 2-14 are dependent claims of claim 1, and fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1, so they are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim
is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of
invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites
a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations of classifying the data into a given category from amongst a plurality of categories and analyzing the classified data to determine a plurality of data points of the classified data that have changed are mental processes. Classifying is a mental process since humans can mentally categorize things. Humans can mentally detect changes to data.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional
elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical
application for the following rationale:
The limitations "for remotely monitoring a plurality of sub-systems", "polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems", “wherein data from the given sub-system is polled at a given polling frequency”, “based on pre-stored data at a centralized server”, “transmitting the plurality of data points to the centralized server at a given upload frequency, for storage thereat” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitations "for remotely monitoring a plurality of sub-systems", "polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems", “wherein data from the given sub-system is polled at a given polling frequency”, “based on pre-stored data at a centralized server”, “transmitting the plurality of data points to the centralized server at a given upload frequency, for storage thereat” are directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations "the method being implemented by a first software application executing on at least one client device that is communicably coupled to the plurality of sub- systems" and "wherein a given sub-system comprises at least one of: a computing device, a server, an operating system, a second software application" apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a software application, at least one client device, a plurality of sub-systems, a computing device, a server, an operating system, and a second software application which are generic computers does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitations "for remotely monitoring a plurality of sub-systems", "polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems", “wherein data from the given sub-system is polled at a given polling frequency”, “based on pre-stored data at a centralized server”, “transmitting the plurality of data points to the centralized server at a given upload frequency, for storage thereat” are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" or “storing and retrieving information in memory” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations "the method being implemented by a first software application executing on at least one client device that is communicably coupled to the plurality of sub- systems" and "wherein a given sub-system comprises at least one of: a computing device, a server, an operating system, a second software application" apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore do not provide significantly more.
As per claim 2, it recites mental processes, generic computing components, and insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 3, it recites insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 4, it recites generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to “storing and retrieving information in memory” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 5, it recites mere instructions to apply the judicial exception and insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to “storing and retrieving information in memory” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 6, it recites attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 7, it recites attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 8, it recites insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 9, it recites insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 10, it recites generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 11, it recites mental processes, generic computing components, attributes of the technological environment, mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 12, it recites mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, generic computing components, and insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to “receiving or transmitting data” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 13, it recites generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to “storing and retrieving information in memory” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 14, it recites generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activities that are well understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to “receiving or transmitting data” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al. (US 20110016195 A1 hereinafter Kaplan) in view of Carreiro et al. (US 11039278 B1 hereinafter Carreiro).
As per claim 1, Kaplan teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method for remotely monitoring a plurality of sub-systems, the method being implemented by a first software application executing on at least one client device that is communicably coupled to the plurality of sub-systems, the method comprising ([0074] The Polling Script 1212 prompts the browser, each time a designated time interval has passed (the "Polling Interval") 1214, to poll the Server; [0025] End-users may download the structured document file from the server, and then poll the server on an automated basis to detect and download changes to the file): - polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems, wherein a given sub-system comprises at least one of: a computing device, a server, an operating system, a second software application ([0025] End-users may download the structured document file from the server, and then poll the server on an automated basis to detect and download changes to the file), and wherein data from the given sub-system is polled at a given polling frequency ([0089] modulate the frequency with which End-User Devices 134 (FIG. 1) poll the Server 110); - classifying the data into a given category from amongst a plurality of categories ([0025] The transmissions may be prompted by a human-operated or automated means of control by changing a structured document file or proxy file on a server.); - analyzing the classified data, based on pre-stored data at a centralized server, to determine a plurality of data points of the classified data that have changed ([0077] processes discussed herein whereby a controller changes a Controlled-Channel File on the Server and an end-user receives transmission of the data corresponding to that change; [0089] modulate the frequency with which End-User Devices 134 (FIG. 1) poll the Server 110 (FIG. 1), 516 (FIG. 7) for changes to the Controlled-Channel File 710; [0077] that the processes discussed herein whereby a controller changes a Controlled-Channel File on the Server and an end-user receives transmission of the data corresponding to that change, may be implemented as well with a Proxy File serving in place of the Controlled-Channel File to make the new data available; [0085] FIG. 12C shows exemplary pseudocode for a Controlled-Channel File, including an embedded Polling Script's use of the XMLHttpRequest object 1224 to poll the Server every 500 milliseconds 1232. The Polling Script detects any changes 1226 made to a Proxy File 1230).
Kaplan fails to teach - transmitting the plurality of data points to the centralized server at a given upload frequency, for storage thereat.
However, Carreiro teaches - transmitting the plurality of data points to the centralized server at a given upload frequency, for storage thereat (Abstract adjusting a frequency of uploading collected location information to a server; Col. 12 lines 66-67 Data stores 264 may be used to store various types of information.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Kaplan with the teachings of Carreiro to optimize performance (see Carreiro Col. 9 lines 50-51 determining an optimal frequency for collecting and transmitting location data.).
As per claim 3, Kaplan and Carreiro teach a method according to claim 1. Carreiro teaches further comprising adjusting the given upload frequency based on at least one of: a number of changed data points, a change in a status of an alarm, a usage threshold (Col. 9 line 61-Col. 10 line 3 if the mobile device determines that the operating condition satisfies a threshold power-consumption condition of the mobile device, then the mobile device may adjust a frequency of collecting location information, and subsequently resume collecting information (step 112) based on the adjusted frequency. At step 118, the mobile device may, in conjunction with adjusting the frequency of collecting location information, adjust a frequency of uploading the collected location information to a server; Col. 10 lines 18-22 the frequency of collecting location information at the mobile device may be adjusted similarly with, or alternatively, separately from, the frequency of uploading collected location information to the server).
As per claim 4, Kaplan and Carreiro teach method according to claim 1. Carreiro teaches further comprising installing a caching software on the at least one client device, wherein the caching software stores the data in a cache memory associated with the at least one client device (Col. 25 lines 55-61 computer system 500 may be an embedded computer system, a system-on-chip (SOC), a single-board computer system (SBC) (such as, for example, a computer-on-module (COM) or system-on-module (SOM)), a desktop computer system, a laptop or notebook computer system, an interactive kiosk, a mainframe, a mesh of computer systems, a mobile telephone; Col. 26 liens 22-27 processor 502 includes hardware for executing instructions, such as those making up a computer program. As an example and not by way of limitation, to execute instructions, processor 502 may retrieve (or fetch) the instructions from an internal register, an internal cache).
As per claim 5, Kaplan and Carreiro teach method according to claim 1. Kaplan teaches further comprising receiving at least one command from the centralized server, and executing the at least one command at a given sub-system ([0065] For embodiments in which the Server 110 transmits data units that are or include sound files (such as MP3 files) or static or moving image files (such as JPEG or WMV files), the End-User Devices 134 must have browsers that are capable of actuating such files; [0069] After the event begins 510, the end-user causes an End-User Device's browser to download the Controlled-Channel File from the Server 512).
As per claim 6, Kaplan and Carreiro teach a method according to claim 1. Kaplan teaches wherein the plurality of categories comprise at least two of: telemetry, events, alarms, audits, usage, files ([0025] The transmissions may be prompted by a human-operated or automated means of control by changing a structured document file or proxy file on a server; [0024] Exemplary embodiments include transmitting data pertaining to live events, audiovisual recordings, advertising, ).
As per claim 7, Kaplan and Carreiro teach a method according to claim 1. Carreiro teaches wherein the given polling frequency is greater than the given upload frequency (Col. 5 lines 41-43 the mobile device may increase the frequency of collecting location data and/or sending the location data to servers; Col. 10 lines 18-22 the frequency of collecting location information at the mobile device may be adjusted similarly with, or alternatively, separately from, the frequency of uploading collected location information to the server).
As per claim 10, Kaplan and Carreiro teach a method according to claim 1. Kaplan teaches further comprising providing an interactive user interface on a device associated with an estate administrator of the plurality of sub-systems, for enabling the estate administrator to at least view data stored at the centralized server ([0061] the Controller Application 116 may encompass one or more structured document files written in a markup language, and containing embedded code written in a server-side scripting language. Such structured document files, rendered into human readable format and displayed through a viewing medium, such as a screen 128 (FIG. 1), by a browser or equivalent software application (a "Controller Interface Application") 122, may serve as a graphical user interface for the human operator. FIG. 4 illustrates such a graphical user interface. Referring again to FIG. 1, the human operator 132 may direct the Controller Application 116 via the Controller Interface Application 122 and by means of one or more input devices such as a keyboard, mouse, push button, or equivalent 128.).
As per claim 12, it is a system claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 13, Kaplan and Carreiro teach a system according to claim 12. Kaplan teaches further comprising a centralized server communicably coupled to the at least one client device, wherein the centralized server is configured to store data and/or data points transmitted to it by the at least one client device ([0025] End-users may download the structured document file from the server, and then poll the server on an automated basis to detect and download changes to the file; [0087] By the foregoing steps, a human and/or automated controller may transmit to a plurality of end-users a change the controller makes to a Controlled-Channel File on the Server; [0121] One or a plurality of End-User-Navigated Files 126 may reside on the Server 110 (FIGS. 1-3).).
As per claim 14, it is a computer program product of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, Kaplan teaches the computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when accessed by a processing device, cause the processing device to implement a method (claim 1 a first central processing unit, a first memory capacity, a first operating system software application, a first data storage medium).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan and Carreiro, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Corday et al. (US 20060092861 A1 hereinafter Corday).
As per claim 2, Kaplan and Carreiro teach a method according to claim 1.
Kaplan and Carreiro fail to teach further comprising: - installing at least one plugin on the least one client device, prior to polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems; - determining whether the data to be polled has a structured form or an unstructured form; - when it is determined that the data to be polled has the structured form, directly polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems via the at least one plugin; and - when it is determined that the data to be polled has the unstructured form, transforming the unstructured form of the data into the structured form using the at least one plugin, prior to polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems.
However, Corday teaches further comprising: - installing at least one plugin on the least one client device, prior to polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems ([0258] Discovery application may be redeployed as Collector plug-ins; [0399] The Collector first examines the Configuration Policy to determine which Collector Plug-ins are authorized to run, and starts instances of these Collector Plug-ins (13010); [0399] The Collector queries the Registry to determine which managed devices require polling (13050).); - determining whether the data to be polled has a structured form or an unstructured form; - when it is determined that the data to be polled has the structured form, directly polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems via the at least one plugin; and - when it is determined that the data to be polled has the unstructured form, transforming the unstructured form of the data into the structured form using the at least one plugin, prior to polling the data from the plurality of sub-systems ([0399] In some uses, the Collector restructures the Instantiation Conditions information into hierarchical or other internal structures that permit efficient searching and selection based upon data element values. The Collector queries the Registry to determine which managed devices require polling (13050). The Collector starts a polling process in which the Collector instantiates a data collection application (e.g. a Collector plug-in such as plug-ins 3100, 3110, or 3120 as shown in FIG. 3 to poll or query a device (13060), using the Data Element Definition and optionally a Content Parsing Template associated with the device and collection application as the parameter that specifies the data to be collected. If a Content Parsing Template was specified (13070), the Collector converts the "raw" information into data field form (13080), after which, or otherwise, the Collector safe-stores the information returned from the data collection application (13090). The Collector logs the collected information, if configured to do so (13100, 13110), and then, or otherwise, the Collector uses the Classifier/Recognizer (either as part of the Collector, or a Collector Plug-in) to compare the collected information against the instantiation conditions for each dynamic application, and invokes those dynamic applications that match (13120); [0421] The Classifier, upon receipt of one of these "raw" messages, uses a Content Parsing Template to parse the "raw" information and extract information usable to the Collector. ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Kaplan and Carreiro with the teachings of Corday to promote efficiency (see Corday [0421] In short, the Classifier may be combined with other Collector plug-ins for reasons of efficiency in processing.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan and Carreiro, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Antypas, III et al. (US 20140020080 A1 hereinafter Antypas).
As per claim 8, Kaplan and Carreiro a method according to claim 1.
Kaplan and Carreiro fail to teach wherein the given polling frequency lies in a range of 1 second to 86400 seconds.
However, Antypas teaches wherein the given polling frequency lies in a range of 1 second to 86400 seconds ([0104] check for a command periodically based on a time period (e.g., a second, a minute, an hour, a day, based on a polling frequency; 86400 seconds is equivalent to 1 day.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Kaplan and Carreiro with the teachings of Antypas to prevent network disruptions (see Antypas [0121] Implementations described herein may prevent network disruptions by limiting communications between a controller device and a listener device.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan and Carreiro, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bilgrami (US 20230046287 A1).
As per claim 9, Kaplan and Carreiro teach a method according to claim 1.
Kaplan and Carreiro fail to teach wherein the given upload frequency lies in a range of 1 second to 86400 seconds.
However, Bilgrami teaches wherein the given upload frequency lies in a range of 1 second to 86400 seconds ([0016] The data categories of the uploaded data included image data, video data, and location data, and the upload frequency can be 5 times per day for the social networking application category; [0017] a second training input can identify that for application X a client device uploads 5 megabytes (MB) of data per day to a location identified by the resource locator X. The data categories of the uploaded data include video data and the upload frequency is 6 times per day for application X.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Kaplan and Carreiro with the teachings of Bilgrami to prevent malicious upload activity (see Bilgrami [0024] the anti-malware can automatically pause or terminate current uploading activity associated with the potential malicious upload activity.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSING CHUN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8522. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights