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 § 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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Referring to claim 12, it refers to cancelled claim 10. This is understood to have been intended to depend from claim 1 instead.
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 1-9, 12-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, if no statutory category rejection was given above, then the claims have been determined to have a statutory category.
Referring to claim 1, at step 2a, prong one, as emphasized, there is disclosed a method for querying data from client devices in a process bus communication network, receiving data, processing the data to detect anomalies, classifying the detected anomalies, outputting information on the detected anomalies including classification, determining a corrective action, and initializing performance of the action. Claim 1 recited, “A method for maintaining a process bus communication network, the method comprising: querying data values from client devices operating in the process bus communication network; receiving the data values for one or more publisher devices of the client devices broadcasting data in the process bus communication network and one or more subscriber devices of the client devices seeking broadcasted data in the process bus communication network; processing the received data values to detect anomalies in the process bus communication network; classifying each of the detected anomalies into at least one of: a configuration issue at one of the one or more publisher devices, a communication issue due to incompatibility between one of the one or more publisher devices and corresponding one of the one or more subscriber devices, a configuration issue at one of the one or more subscriber devices; providing an output comprising details of the detected anomalies, comprising classification thereof; determining at least one corrective action for each of the detected anomalies based, at least in part, on the classification thereof; and initializing performance of the at least one corrective action for each of the detected anomalies either automatically based on predefined conditions or based upon receiving approval from a user. ” Claims 14 and 15 claim or attempt to claim different statutory categories of an independent claim already determined to have a statutory category.
The limitations of processing, classifying, and determining, as crafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, nothing in these claim elements as emphasized precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, possibly with the aid pen and paper. For example, these steps perform steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim additionally recites a generic computer (presumably what queries from client devices), querying and receiving data, and providing output.
The computer is recited at a high level of generality. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations of querying and receiving data (including querying from client devices of the process bus communication network) and outputting details are necessary data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
“Initializing” the corrective action appears to be, at best, performing an operation represented by adding words equivalent to "apply it" that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, an insignificant application of the abstract mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At step 2b, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are the additional elements of a generic computer, querying and receiving data, and outputting details.
The limitations regarding use of a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP2106.05(d), for example TLI Communications, Flook, Alice Corp, and Versata.
The limitation of querying and receiving data amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, see US 20200252264 A1 at paragraph 2, US 20150325108 A1 at paragraph 35, US 20230300152 A1 at paragraph 22, US 20200143481 A1 at paragraph 134, US 20200134069 A1 at paragraph 59, US 20220122001 A1 at paragraph 253, US 20180089017 A1 at paragraph 39, and US 20150032752 A1 at paragraph 7.
Further regarding client devices on a process bus communication network that could be the target of such a query, this is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See for example US 20220131377 at paragraph 42, US 20220353196 at paragraph 33, and US 20070206644 at paragraph 24.
Further, “initializing” is recited at a high level of generality. Initializing is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (g).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Further referring to claim 2, the querying is additionally claimed to utilize “web services”. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Web services are well-understood, routine, conventional. See for example US 20110282943 at paragraph 54, US 20060167856 at paragraph 49, US 20160149858 at paragraph 103, US 20120102472 at paragraph 52.
Further referring to claim 3-9, this further claims steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Further referring to claim 12, this describes data.
Further referring to claim 13, there is claimed an “interface” to display the output and further descriptions of the data displayed. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Interfaces are well-understood, routine, conventional. See for example US 20050010416 at paragraph 125, US 20090150812 at paragraph 3, US 20130007655 at paragraph 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 9) referring to the “scale and speed” of data, no particular amount of data or rate of data or its analysis has been claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 9) pointing to the corrective step being “concrete” and not performed in the human mind, examiner agrees, although points to this as insignificantly additional.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 10) further pointing to the corrective action as evidence that the claim as a whole is not directed to a mental process, as above, this limitation was addressed as insignificantly additional and therefore not considered to integrated into practical application.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 11) pointing to various parts of the specification, to the extent claimed, these portions merely appear to emphasize the analytical aspects deemed to correspond with an abstract mental idea, albeit with insignificant additional elements (see rejection).
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 11) that the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement, the improvement itself appears to be for the analysis of data with insignificant additional elements.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 12) that the claims integrate into practical application because the corrective action represents operational improvement, as above, examiner points out that this was insignificantly additional. Applicant goes on to argue (page 12) that this represents “automatic correction of network issues, improving network reliability and efficiency”. Besides the word “corrective”, it is difficult to tell how this “specifically” improves network reliability and efficiency, even if it is practiced in a specific, insignificantly additional, environment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 13) that the claim limitations are not well understood, routine, and conventional, examiner notably did apply such references to specific limitations deemed additional. That the invention as a whole is not well understood, routine, and conventional should speak to the nature of 2b analysis, which is for those additional elements. That is, for those additional elements that were deemed not to integrate, a subsequent consideration in 2b is whether those additional elements were also well understood, routine, and conventional.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL L CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-3656. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 8 am to 5 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571)272-0631. 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.
/GABRIEL CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights