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
Claims 1-7, 10-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method comprising steps performed by a computing system that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitation “performing operations by the computing system to identify patterns in the plurality of datasets received from the plurality of incompatible data sources” recites Mental Process. This limitation involves evaluating and observing relationships/patterns within data which can be conceptually performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. It fits the mental process grouping because it describes an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion regarding the dataset content.
Limitation “making, by the computing system based on the identified patterns, informed autonomous decisions for controlling operations of a plurality of distributed point-of-service devices that are respectively located at a plurality of different sites in a geographic area” recites Mental Process. This step requires judgment and evaluation to determine control actions without specific mathematical formulas or commercial rules. It fits the mental process grouping because it describes an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion regarding operational decisions based on patterns.
Step 2A Prong 2
The additional elements:
receiving metadata for a data warehouse, the metadata comprising a plurality of data identifiers, each data identifier associated with a unique data item;
receiving, from a plurality of incompatible data sources respectively via a plurality of first application programming interfaces, a plurality of datasets that each comprise at least one of the plurality of data identifiers, wherein each of the plurality of datasets has a data format different than data formats of all other ones of the plurality of datasets;
transforming the data format of at least a portion of each one plurality of datasets into another data format based on the at least one of the plurality of data identifiers and or a respective one of the plurality of first application programming interfaces;
storing, in a plurality of interconnected tables within the data warehouse, the plurality of datasets after said transforming, wherein the interconnected tables are connected with identifier mapping tables;
receiving, through each of a plurality of second application programming interfaces, a request for data, the request comprising at least one data identifier of the plurality of data identifiers;
returning, via each of the second application programming interfaces, analyzed or summarized data based on the at least one data identifier contained in the request and or a respective one of the plurality of second application programming interfaces;
automatedly reconfiguring or autonomously controlling operations of the plurality of distributed point-of-service devices, in accordance with the informed autonomous decisions.
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field:
The claim does not improve computer functionality because it merely uses generic data processing steps. It fails to solve a technical problem inherent in computing systems by providing specific structural improvements.
MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine:
The recited “computing system” is a generic tool that performs the abstract idea without adding significant structure or functionality. A general purpose computer does not integrate the exception into a practical application on its own.
MPEP 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation:
Transforming data formats between incompatible sources is not considered as transforming an article to a different state. This manipulation of information lacks physical transformation eligibility under § 101 standards.
MPEP 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations:
The claim fails to provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment. It does not impose constraints that transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception:
The mental process steps are applied on a generic computing system without specific implementation details. This amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using standard computer components known in the art.
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity:
Receiving data and returning analyzed results constitute pre- and post-solution activity that is insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are merely gathering information for use by a mental process rather than integrating it into the claim's core invention.
MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment:
Limiting the application to vending machine control does not provide an inventive concept or technical improvement. This is simply a field-of-use limitation that restricts where the abstract idea can be applied without changing its nature.
Step 2B The ordered combination of generic data collection, storage, and mental process steps lacks unconventional architecture or non-conventional arrangement because each step performs well-understood functions individually and collectively they do not create a new technological solution. Under Berkheimer inquiries, the identified elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of data management where computing system components perform basic computer functions that are standard practice for managing disparate data sources. Consequently, the claim fails Step 2B because it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2 recites “wherein receiving metadata for the data warehouse comprises receiving unique numeric identifiers” Assigning or receiving specific numbers for data items is well-understood activity in database management systems. This limitation merely specifies a conventional method of identifying digital records without improving technology.
Claim 3 recites “wherein receiving the request for data comprises receiving credentials that authorize returning the analyzed or summarized data.” Verifying user authorization through credential checks is standard security practice in computer networks. Consequently, this additional limitation represents well-understood, routine activity that fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself under § 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein receiving the credentials comprise receiving credentials generated by a role-based authentication system.” Implementing role-based access controls is conventional technology used to manage user permissions securely without technical improvement. Therefore, this specific type of credential generation does not amount to an inventive concept and leaves the claim ineligible under § 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the transforming the data format is based on terms of a contract.” This limitation merely applies the exception in a specific field of use rather than providing significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “wherein returning analyzed or summarized data comprises generating a graphical summary of the requested data.” Displaying information on a screen or creating visual representations is post-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites “detecting another pattern in first data received from at least one of the plurality of incompatible data sources; selecting a portion of the first data based on the detected another pattern; and extracting the portion of the first data that was selected” Selecting specific subsets of information based on identified patterns is a mental process that can be performed by humans using pen and paper without computer assistance. These steps amount to well-understood data manipulation techniques.
Claim 10 recites “receiving, from the vending machine or media device via a respective interface of the plurality of first application programming interfaces, another dataset that comprises one or more data identifiers of the plurality of data identifiers;
transforming a data format of another dataset into the another data format based on the one or more data identifiers and or the respective interface of the plurality of first application programming interfaces; and storing, in the plurality of interconnected tables within the data warehouse, the another dataset in the another data format” These steps represent standard data ingestion and processing routines that are well-understood, conventional activities in the field of database management. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites “autonomously remotely controlling another vending machine or media device based on the stored another dataset.” This step constitutes standard automation logic where software executes rules to manage physical devices, which is well-understood. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Section 35 U.S.C. 101
Pg. 7, Applicant argues that “… In the Office Action, claims 1-22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Applicant asserts that the amendments made to the independent claims sufficiently address this rejection by reciting that the method is for facilitating distributed system management that leverages a specific, unconventional architecture for autonomous control and/or (re)configuration of physical point-of-service devices distributed across different geographic sites. Applicant believes that the features of the claimed solution provide a practical and novel use of distributed system management technology. (See paragraphs [0019]- [0021], [0033], [0035] of the present application)…”
The Applicant asserts that the amendments recite a specific, unconventional architecture for autonomous control and distributed system management. This argument relies heavily on disclosures within the specification rather than the actual claim language, which does not support these assertions.
The generic hardware components like processors or memory do not render claims eligible. The paragraphs [0019]-[0021] describe a data infrastructure and portals for business decisions. These passages disclose general system capabilities but fail to recite specific technical improvements to computers. Paragraphs [0019]-[0021] focus on consolidating data flow between organizational departments rather than improving the underlying technology itself. The specification describes resolving miscommunication and financial accuracy that are not equivalent to technical solutions. The paragraph [0033] regarding data collection and transformation eliminating manual GUI actions. The elimination of manual steps represents an efficiency in workflow, not a technical improvement to the functioning of the computing system. Paragraph [0035] discusses improvements in resource intensivity and user experience compared to prior art systems requiring multiple disparate applications. This relates to business operational efficiency rather than improving the functioning of the computer or technology. The claims do not recite specific technical details that would demonstrate a technological improvement over conventional computing operations.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the previous analysis classified limitations regarding pattern identification and decision making as Mental Processes. The claim text sets forth these abstract ideas without specific technical limitations that would alter this classification.
Under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, generic computing system operations merely apply these mental processes using standard tools without integrating them into a practical application. The claim invokes computers as mere conduits for performing existing abstract ideas like pattern identification or decision making. Consequently, these limitations fail to provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
No inventive concept is found because the additional elements (receiving…, receiving…, transforming…, storing…, receiving…, returning…, reconfiguring or automatically controlling…) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The claim fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the rejection is maintained for all claims.
Pg. 7-8, “ Applicant argues that “… Independent claim 1 recites limitations that (I) are focused on a solution to problems specifically arising in systems with point-of-service hardware distributed across different geographic sites and (II) identify a specific improvement in distributed management system capabilities rather than only claiming a desirable result or function. With regard to point (I), claim 1 is focused on a novel solution that overcomes drawbacks of other solutions specifically arising in the realm of distributed management system technology with point-of-service location constraints. In this regard, the claimed solution provides a method comprising: (1) receiving, from a plurality of incompatible data sources respectively via a plurality of first application programming interfaces, a plurality of datasets that each comprise at least one of the plurality of data identifiers (wherein each of the plurality of datasets has a data format different than data formats of all other ones of the plurality of datasets); (2) transforming the data format of at least a portion of each one plurality of datasets into another data format based on the at least one of the plurality of data identifiers and or a respective one of the plurality of first application programming interfaces; (3) storing, in a plurality of interconnected tables within the data warehouse, the plurality of datasets after said transforming, wherein the interconnected tables are connected with identifier mapping tables; (4) performing operations by the computing system to identify patterns in the plurality of datasets received from the plurality of incompatible data sources; (5) making, by the computing system based on the identified patterns, informed autonomous decisions for controlling operations of a plurality of distributed point-of-service devices that are respectively located at a plurality of different sites in a geographic area; and (6) automatedly reconfiguring or autonomously controlling operations of the plurality of distributed point-of-service devices, in accordance with the informed autonomous decisions. Features (1)-(6) do more than simply data collection, transformation, and pattern detection since they integrate that analysis into a concrete technical application in steps (5), (6). With regard to point (II), there are many challenges with providing distributed device management. Claim 1 recites limitations specifying how distributed device management functionality is implemented with computer systems relying on the combination of transforming incompatible data formats into interconnected data warehouse tables and using those specific data relationships to trigger automated operational changes in remote point-of-service devices. Thus, claim 1 identifies the specific improvement…”
The Applicant asserts that Claim 1 is focused on a novel solution for distributed management systems with point-of-service location constraints. This argument defines a field of use rather than an improvement to technology itself. Limiting the abstract idea of data analysis and decision making to specific geographic sites does not render the claim eligible under § 101.
The Applicant further argues that Claim 1 identifies a specific improvement in distributed device management capabilities by transforming incompatible data formats. The claim recites generic APIs and storage tables without describing how these components structurally enhance the underlying technology. This aligns with the guidance that improvements must be technical solutions to technological problems, not just better organization of information.
Based on the previous analysis, limitations regarding receiving metadata and datasets are classified as additional elements. These steps involve routine data collection and transmission functions known in the art. They do not integrate any judicial exception into a practical application because they merely gather inputs for subsequent processing.
Limitation “performing operations to identify patterns” is classified as a Mental Process because this limitation describes evaluating relationships/patterns within data that can be conceptually performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The claim does not recite specific algorithms required to distinguish this from mere mental observation.
Limitation “making informed autonomous decisions based on identified patterns” is also classified as a Mental Process because this step involves judgment and evaluation which are fundamental human activities. The claim does not describe specific technical mechanisms that prevent this decision-making process from being performed mentally.
Limitation “reconfiguring devices function” as post-solution without improving the computer itself. Modifying a GUI or sending alerts based on calculations is conventional unless it improves the underlying operating system structure.
While the specification may describe technical improvements, the current claims fail to set forth specific structural details or unconventional arrangements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. The combination of generic data handling and mental processes amounts to nothing more than instructions to apply an abstract idea on generic hardware.
Pg. 8-9, Applicant argues that “… In Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank Int'l ("Alice"), the Supreme Court clarified the standard used in determining whether a claim is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. First, one must "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.' Second, one must determine whether there are sufficient limitations present in the claims "to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself." A "patent- ineligible concept" is a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea which provides "the basic tools of scientific and technological work" and represents "the building blocks of human ingenuity." "Applications of such concepts to a new and useful end remain eligible for patent prosecution." Applicant submits that Alice supports its position that the pending claims are patent eligible.
The exclusion of abstract ideas from patent-eligible subject matter arises from a concern over the pre-emption of all applications of an idea. Here, there is no risk of such preemption because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but to implementing systems of a specific method for using a novel technique for distributed device management. The specific method is not a mere collection of mental steps which can be performed by the human mind, but instead a collection of concrete, physical steps which are accomplished through the use of a computer system (e.g., a computer system with computer device(s) having a network-connected setup) for a "new and useful end" (i.e., enabling control and/or (re)configuration of point-of-service devices distributed across different geographic sites). These concrete; physical steps amount to a specific variation of distributed device management. The claims at issue do not pre-empt all uses of distributed device management techniques, nor do they result in a monopoly over all distributed device management methods and/or systems implementing the same. Indeed, the Examiner does not make any assertion that they do. The claims do not represent either "basic tools" or "building blocks of human ingenuity". Therefore, under Alice, the claims cannot be considered to be directed solely to an abstract idea or abstract steps…”
The Supreme Court in Alice Corp. requires determining if the claim is directed to ineligible concepts before considering additional elements.
Limitation “performing operations to identify patterns in datasets received from incompatible sources” describes a process of observation and evaluation that can be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. Such data analysis constitutes a mental process grouping under Step 2A Prong One.
Limitation “making informed autonomous decisions based on identified patterns for controlling devices” is an inherent cognitive function associated with abstract ideas rather than technical solutions to technological problems. This limitation sets forth the concept of judgment and evaluation without requiring specific structural improvements to hardware.
Generic hardware components do not transform mental processes into patentable subject matter. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer component does not alter its fundamental nature as an abstract concept.
The Applicant argues that there is no risk of preemption. However, implementing a mental process on a computer does not overcome preemption concerns. Ultimately, the claim is directed to the abstract idea itself rather than a technical improvement to the technology
Limitation “automatedly reconfiguring operations based on decisions made by the system” is a post-solution activity that follows the mental process analysis and decision-making steps. It does not integrate the exception into a practical application because it merely applies the result of the abstract idea to physical devices.
The specification describes data collection and transformation as conventional computing functionality used to support business intelligence. These disclosures confirm that the claimed operations rely on standard database management techniques rather than novel technical improvements. The Applicant's argument about a "new and useful end" fails because it applies an abstract idea to a specific field without adding significant inventive concept.
Pg. 10, Applicant argues that “… In the Office's Section 101 Revised Guidance, the Office states that claims are eligible if they integrate any abstract ideas into a practical application. Elements are considered to have integrated an abstract idea into a practical application when: (1) they improve the functioning of a computer; (2) they are implemented in a particular machine; (3) they effect a particular "transformation" of an article (i.e., the article undergoes a change in state or thing (objectively different function or use)); and/or (4) they apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea.
As noted above, items (2) and (4) are met by the claimed subject matter.
With regard to (1), the claimed solution improves the functioning of distributed device management computing technology. This improved functioning of the distributed device management computing technology at least partially results from the implementation of (i) incompatible data format transformations into interconnected data warehouse tables and (ii) specific data relationships to trigger automated operational changes in remote point-of-service machines. This implementation improves the performance of computing technology by providing, for example, less resource intensity, less computational complexity, shorter processing time, and/or improved user experience.
With regard to item (3), such a transformation occurs. For example, in independent claim 1, the method comprises transforming the data format of at least a portion of each one plurality of datasets into another data format based on the at least one of the plurality of data identifiers and/or a respective one of the plurality of first application programming interfaces. As readily understood by those skilled in the art, these operations inherently involve transformations (e.g., conversion from a raw data format to a structured data format, etc.).
In view of forgoing, the claims at issue are believed to be patent-eligible. Accordingly, withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is respectfully requested…”
Generic application programming interfaces do not constitute a particular machine under MPEP eligibility analysis guidelines for software claims. Merely invoking computers as tools to perform existing processes fails to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
You assert that items (2) and (4) are met. These elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception on generic hardware rather than providing significantly more for improvements consideration. The claim lacks specific technical details showing how it improves computer capabilities beyond conventional data processing functions.
Regarding item (1), the Applicant argues the solution improves distributed device management through format transformations and automated changes. This argument does not provide solving a technological problem inherent to the system architecture. The specification focuses on eliminating manual actions instead of disclosing technical solutions that improve computer functionality itself.
The Applicant further argues that item (3) is met because data formats transform the data format based on identifiers and/or APIs. This limitation describes a generic computer function rather than effecting a particular transformation of an article. Transforming digital information stored in memory does not objectively change the state or thing of the underlying hardware components themselves to satisfy this requirement.
The rejections are maintained to claims 1-7, 10-18, and 21-22.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
U.S. Patent 8631050 – Gayle discloses a transformation engine is disclosed that retrieves source data from a plurality of disparate data sources and provides source data that is consistent and normalized. the transformation engine comprises a plurality of interfaces that receive source data from a plurality of disparate databases. The source data comprises a plurality of data elements. The transformation engine further comprises a converter that aggregates and converts the received source data so that the plurality of data elements are recognizable as being substantially equivalent; a data processor that formats the received source data by merging and preparing the received source data; and a business rule applicator that filters the received source data.
U.S. Pub 2013/0086124 – Bahl discloses a method for transforming data structures includes processing a portion of a source data structure (SDS) with a first processing resource by associating the first processing resource with a target data structure (TDS) key element located in a key position of a queue, determining whether the queue includes an SDS node element corresponding to the key position, processing the SDS node element responsive to determining that the queue includes the SDS node element corresponding to the key position, wherein the processing the SDS node element comprises retrieving the SDS node element from the queue, processing the retrieved SDS node element to generate a resultant TDS node element, outputting the resultant TDS node element to an empty key position in the queue, and mapping the resultant TDS node element to the TDS.
Conclusion
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.
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 HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
