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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. An analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility follows:
Step1: Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 recite a system, a product, and a method, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 recite continuously monitoring a data file system to identify import of datafiles; determining import of the datafiles into the data file system based on monitoring the data file system; analyzing the datafiles; determining that at least two datafiles of the datafiles are small part files that do not meet requirements of the data file system based on analyzing the datafiles, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations entirely in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the steps of identifying import of datafiles, determining import of the datafiles into the data file system, analyzing the datafiles, and determining that at least two datafiles of the datafiles may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement of monitoring a data file system, (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). For example, “monitoring” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user continuously monitoring a data file system to identify import of datafiles, “determining” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user determining import of the datafiles into the data file system based on monitoring the data file system, “analyzing” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user analyzing the datafiles, and “determining” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user determining that at least two datafiles of the datafiles are small part files that do not meet requirements of the data file system based on analyzing the datafiles.
Claim(s) 3-7, 10-14, 17-20 recite further limitations that fall under the judicial exception as recited in claim(s) 1, 8, 15. Each of the further limitations encompass performance of the steps within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim(s) 1, 8, 15, “interface,” “storage device,” “processing device,” “medium,” “via the artificial intelligence engine,” “performing auto-remediation of the at least two datafiles, via the artificial intelligence engine based on combining the at least two datafiles into a combined datafile.” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are directed to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and recite mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim(s) 3-7, 10-14, 17-20 recite further details regarding file format, combined datafile, and notification. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the 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.
Step 2B: Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitations of “interface,” “storage device,” “processing device,” “medium,” “via the artificial intelligence engine,” “performing auto-remediation of the at least two datafiles, via the artificial intelligence engine based on combining the at least two datafiles into a combined datafile.” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data using generic computers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Regarding claim(s) 3-7, 10-14, 17-20, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they simply apply the exception using a generic computer.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 recite an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not patent eligible.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Remarks state, “the very nature of electronically transferring electronic datafiles into electronic data file systems, is not capable of being performed in human mind. The invention addresses this specific technical problem by performing remediation actions on the small part files that do not meet the size requirements associated with the data file systems.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Electronically transferring electronic datafiles into electronic data file systems is not recited in the claims. Even if it is, it is mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data using generic computers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
The Remarks state, “the pending claims recite a particular way of improving efficiency of data file system by preventing unnecessary memory consumption, utilization of processing power,” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., perform auto-remediation of the at least two datafiles, via the artificial intelligence engine based on combining the at least two datafiles into a combined datafile.) The claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
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 KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights