DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
This application is a Continuation of and claims priority of application 18/590,924, filed on 2/28/2024, which itself claimed priority of the following applications: 18/204,084, filed on 5/31/2023; 18/092,014, filed on 12/30/2022; 17/384,572, filed on 7/23/2021; 14/583,270, filed on 12/26/2014; 12/377,341, filed on 2/12/2009; PCT/1L2007/001011, filed on 8/13/2007; and 60/822,238, filed on 8/13/2006.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-16, 18-27, 29-31 and 34-35 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1, 4, 7, 15, 18-19, 21, 27 and 29-30 are amended. Claims 3, 14, 17, 28 and 32-33 are cancelled. Claims 34-35 are new.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claim is not directed towards an abstract idea, Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the amended claim language recites abstract ideas. Specifically, Mental Processes as noted previously. The claim language recites limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, Examiner will remind Applicant that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer, as these claims do, may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. In addition, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed invention, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further asserts that there is a specific improvement in computer technology, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner will further note an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provide a detailed explanation of how to perform this analysis. In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. In analyzing the specification, Examiner maintains that the specification sets forth an improvement, but in a conclusory manner and furthermore the claims do not reflect the disclosed improvement or effectively demonstrate an improvement to existing technology. In addition, (ref: Oct 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Applicant further asserts that the claims are similar to BASCOM, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated, in Bascom, the claims solved an internet centric problem of filtering internet content. The internet as computer technology as well as the computers are a necessary component of the claims. In other words, it is impossible to perform the claims without the use of the internet because no analog version of the problem existed prior to the internet. Therefore, Bascom is distinguishable from the current claims because current claims are merely linking the combination of the conventional and routine computer components to the abstract idea in order to solve a business problem, while in Bascom, the abstract idea is necessarily rooted in the combination of the conventional and routine computer components.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-13, 29-31, and 34-35 they are directed to a method; however, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-2, 4-13, 29-31, and 34-35 are directed to the abstract idea of monitoring business process instances.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites receiving a first message of a first type comprising at least a first meta-tag field and a second meta-tag field that is being exchanged between a first sub-process and a second sub-process of any one of the business process instances; extracting a first data value from the first meta-tag field of the received first message and a second data value from the second meta-tag field of the received first message; correlating, the received first message with a matched one of said business process instances by identifying a first match between the first data value and the first identification value of the process instance identification of said matched one of the plurality of business process instances; based on the identified first match, adding the second data value to the process instance identification of said matched one of said business process instances to create a first updated process instance identification for said matched one of said business process instances comprising the first identification value and the second data value; storing the first updated business process instance identification; using said correlated first message to update the state of said matched one of said business process instances to a first updated state; receiving a second message of a second type comprising at least the second meta-tag field and a third meta-tag field, that is being exchanged between the second sub-process and a third sub-process of said matched one of said business process instances: extracting a second data value from said second meta-tag field of the received second message and a third meta-tag value from said third meta-tag field of the received second message: correlating, the received second message with one of said business process instances by identifying a second match between the second data value and the first updated process instance identification: based on the identified second match, adding the third data value to the process instance identification to create a second updated process instance identification for said matched one of said business process instances comprising the first identification value, the second identification value and the third data value: storing the second updated business process instance identification: using said correlated second message to further update the state of said matched one of said business process instances to a second updated state: and automatically analyzing said first and second updated states to identify an exception in said matched one of said business process instances comprising at least one of a data error and a bypassed sub-process.
The claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for each limitations recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement). Examiner will further note that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2, 4-13, 29-31, and 34-35 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of two or more information technology systems, a first information technology system, a second technology information system, a process instance database, and at least one server. The two or more information technology systems, a first information technology system, a second technology information system, a process instance database, and at least one server are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 12 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include two or more information technology systems, a first information technology system, a second technology information system, a process instance database, at least one server, an application programming interface and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Pg 12 lines 10-32. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 12, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 15-16 and 18-27, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 15-16 and 18-27 are directed to the abstract idea of monitoring business process instances.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 15, claim 15 recites receive, a first message of a first type comprising at least a first meta-tag field and a second meta-tag field that is being exchanged between a first sub-process and a second sub-process of any one of the business process instances; extract a first data value from the first meta-tag field of the received first message and a second data value from the second meta-tag field of the received first message; automatically correlate, the received first message with a matched one of said business process instances by automatically identify a first match between the first data value and the first identification value of the process instance identification of said matched one of the plurality of business process instances, to identify a matched business process instance; based on the identified first match, automatically add the second data value to the process instance identification of said matched one of said business process instances to create an updated process instance identification for said matched one of said business process instances comprising the first identification value and the second data value; store the updated business process instance identification; automatically use said correlated first message to update the state of said matched one of said business process instances to a first updated state; receive a second message of a second type comprising at least the second meta-tag field and a third meta-tag field, that is being exchanged between the second sub-process and a third sub-process of said matched one of said business process instances: extract said second data value from the second meta-tag field of the received second message; automatically correlate, the received second message with the matched one of said business process instances by automatically identifying a second match between the second data value and the updated process instance identification; based on the identified second match, automatically add the third data value to the process instance identification of said matched one of said business process instances to create a second updated process instance identification for said matched one of said business process instances comprising the second identification value and the third data value; store the second updated business process instance identification; automatically use said correlated second message to further update the state of said matched one of said business process instances to a second updated state: and automatically analyze said first and second updated states to identify an exception in said matched one of said business process instances comprising at least one of a double payment, an altered payee, a bypassed sub-process, a purchase for personal gain, accepting a return of a purchased item without issuing a refund, and an error in data typing.
The claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for each limitations recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement). Examiner will further note that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 16 and 18-27 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of at least one processor, server, two or more different disconnected information technology systems, a process instance database, a server, a first information system, a second information system and at least one memory. The at least one processor, server, two or more different disconnected information technology systems, a process instance database, a server, a first information system, a second information system and at least one memory are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 15-16, 18 and 26 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include an application programming interface, at least one processor, server, two or more different disconnected information technology systems, a process instance database, a server, a first information system, a second information system, at least one memory and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Pg 12 lines 10-32. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 15-16, 18 and 26, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623