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
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 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims generally link abstract ideas to a generic computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mere instructions to perform mental processes on a generic computer without creating a significant improvement or change to the computer.
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
performing duplicate removal processing on each piece of event information based on client identifier information in each piece of received event information, (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
and determining a result execution count and a total execution count corresponding to the index to be determined; (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
determining an index result corresponding to the index to be determined based on the result execution count and the total execution count (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
A method for determining an index, comprising: receiving event information reported by a client at a preset event tracking position, wherein the preset event tracking position comprises a start event generation position, a result event generation position and at least one subsequent event generation position corresponding to an index to be determined, and the at least one subsequent event generation position is located behind a first result event generation position matching the index to be determined; (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
wherein the index result is used to characterize a running performance of an application; and optimizing the application based on the index result. (MPEP 2106.5(f)(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. As mere Instructions to apply an exception)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and instructions in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data and instructions for the mental process to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.5(f)(1))
Claim 2
Claim 2 merely further describe the index and client identifier information of claim 1, respectively
Claim 3
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
The method according to claim 1, wherein the performing duplicate removal processing on each piece of event information based on client identifier information in each piece of received event information, (This merely further describe the performing duplicate removal processing of claim 1, respectively, which is a mental process)
and determining a result execution count and a total execution count corresponding to the index to be determined comprise: performing duplicate removal processing on an identical event information reported by an identical client based on the client identifier information in each piece of received event information; (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
determining the result execution count corresponding to the index to be determined based on first result event information and subsequent event information corresponding to each piece of client identifier information after the duplicate removal processing; (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
and determining the total execution count corresponding to the index to be determined based on start event information corresponding to each piece of client identifier information after the duplicate removal processing. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claim 4
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
The method according to claim 3, wherein the determining the result execution count corresponding to the index to be determined based on first result event information and subsequent event information corresponding to each piece of client identifier information after the duplicate removal processing comprises: performing second duplicate removal processing on the first result event information and the subsequent event information corresponding to identical client identifier information, (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
determining a quantity of event information after the second duplicate removal processing, and taking the quantity of event information after the second duplicate removal processing as the result execution count corresponding to the index to be determined. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claim 5
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
The method according to claim 3, wherein the determining the total execution count corresponding to the index to be determined based on start event information corresponding to each piece of client identifier information after the duplicate removal processing comprises: determining the total execution count corresponding to the index to be determined based on the start event information, result event information and the subsequent event information corresponding to each piece of client identifier information after the duplicate removal processing. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claim 6
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
The method according to claim 5, wherein the determining the total execution count corresponding to the index to be determined based on the start event information, result event information and the subsequent event information corresponding to each piece of client identifier information after the duplicate removal processing comprises: performing second duplicate removal processing on the start event information, the result event information and the subsequent event information corresponding to identical client identifier information, (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
determining a quantity of event information after the second duplicate removal processing, and taking the quantity of event information after the second duplicate removal processing as the total execution count corresponding to the index to be determined. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claim 7
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
and determining the result execution count corresponding to the index to be determined under the preset elapsed time based on a quantity of the first information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
The method according to claim 3, wherein the determining the result execution count corresponding to the index to be determined based on first result event information and subsequent event information corresponding to each piece of client identifier information after the duplicate removal processing comprises: obtaining time field information in the first result event information corresponding to each piece of client identifier information after the duplicate removal processing; (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
selecting first information of which elapsed time is less than or equal to preset elapsed time from the first result event information based on the time field information; (MPEP 2106.05(g), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g))
Claim 9
The server of claim 9 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 1, and claim 9 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Server comprising one or more processors and a memory (MPEP 2106.04(d): regarding, “simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a generic computer (MPEG 2106.05(f)) The computer is cited at such a high level of generality that it cannot be determined to be a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and is simply linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 10
The storage medium of claim 10 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 1, and claim 10 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (MPEP 2106.04(d): regarding, “simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a generic computer (MPEG 2106.05(f)) The computer is cited at such a high level of generality that it cannot be determined to be a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and is simply linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claims 11-16
The server of claims 11-16 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 2-7, and claims 11-16 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 2-7
Claims 17-20
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 17-20 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 2-5, and claims 17-20 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 2-5
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/02/2026, regarding the rejections applied under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The additional limitations do not implement the judicial exception into a practical application. The steps for “characterize a running performance” and “optimizing the application” were not claimed. Based on MPEP 2106.5(f)(1), the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, which means the they were mere Instructions to apply an exception. (See 101 rejection section above)
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 XINYUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7140. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, 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.
/XINYUAN YU/Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113