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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts and 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 mathematical concepts and 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
generating, by the one or more computer systems, an alert object based on at least a portion of the data received from a data source that indicates an alert, wherein the alert object is generated prior to the data being ingested and indexed by a data platform; (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)
ingesting and indexing, by the one or more computer systems using the data platform, the data; (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)
correlating, by the one or more computer systems and after the transmitting of the alert object, the alert object with at least a portion of indexed data correlated to the alert to determine correlated data; (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 computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by one or more computer systems comprising one or more data processing systems, data; (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
transmitting, by the one or more computer systems, the alert object to one or more alert destinations before the data is made available by the data platform; (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
populating, by the one or more computer systems, a dashboard with at least a portion of the correlated data; (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering and outputting is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
and causing, by the one or more computer systems, the dashboard to be presented on an electronic display. (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering and outputting is an 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 outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g))
Claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising analyzing at least a portion of the data to determine that the alert is indicated, wherein the data includes at least one of metric data or trace data to be indexed by the one or more computer systems. (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 3:
Claim 3 merely further describe the data of claim 2, respectively
Claim 4:
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Providing analytics (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) Mathematical calculations and 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 computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing analytics within the dashboard that indicates a root cause for the alert. (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering and outputting is an 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 outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculations to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g))
Claim 5:
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising including a link to the dashboard within the alert object. (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:
Claim 6 merely further describe the transmitting and correlating process of claim 1, respectively
Claim 7:
Claim 7 merely further describe the correlated data of claim 1, respectively
Claim 8:
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising updating the dashboard in response to additional data being ingested and indexed. (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an 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 in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculations to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g))
Claims 9-16:
The system of claims 9-16 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 1-8, and claims 9-16 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-8
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 9 further recites:
one or more processors (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 computer. (MPEG 2106.05(f))
Claims 17-20:
The system of claims 17-20 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 1-2, 4-5, and claims 17-20 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 17 further recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (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 computer. (MPEG 2106.05(f))
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Generating the alert object "prior to the data being ingested and indexed by a data platform" implies that there’re enough information within the data acquired (before it’s ingested and indexed), to make a decision to whether triggers an alert based on this data. A human can make this decision based on this data, in real-time or near real-time with the help of a computer. (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)
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 regarding the rejections of claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 15-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 regarding the rejections of claim(s) 5, 13, 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 5, 13, 20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
UMAY (US 20220292106 A1): A computing system that includes one or more server computing devices including one or more processors configured to execute instructions for a domain extensibility module that provides software development tools for building domain extensions for a database platform, and a data ingestion module that provides software development tools for defining a metadata schema for extracting metadata from data files. The one or more processors are configured to receive a set of data from a user computing device, define a target metadata schema that includes one or more metadata fields that will be populated during a data ingestion process, define a target domain extension that defines one or more data types for storing the received set of data after performing the data ingestion process, and ingest the received set of data using a metadata extraction pipeline to generate metadata files based on the target metadata schema.
Jibbe (US 20130007531 A1): An apparatus comprising an array controller and a frame buffer. The array controller may be configured to read/write data to/from a drive array in response to one or more input/output requests. The frame buffer may be implemented within the array controller and may be configured to perform (i) a first data integrity check to determine a first type of data error and (ii) a second data integrity check to determine a second type of data error. The frame buffer may log occurrences of the first type of error and the second type of error in a field transmitted with the data. The field may be used to determine a source of possible corruption of the data.
Karis (US 12222840 B1): A method of generating metrics data associated with a microservices-based application comprises ingesting a plurality of spans and mapping an ingested span of the plurality of spans to a span identity, wherein the span identity comprises a tuple of information identifying a type of span associated with the span identity, wherein the tuple of information comprises user-configured dimensions. The method further comprises grouping the ingested span by the span identity, wherein the ingested span is grouped with other spans from the plurality of spans comprising a same span identity. The method also comprises computing metrics associated with the span identity and using the metrics to generate a stream of metric data associated with the span identity.
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
/PHILIP GUYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights