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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on April 30th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §101
3. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 7 -12, filed April 30th 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
Patent Eligibility Analysis under Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant respectfully disagrees that "determining that at least one of the messages in the bundle is expired" can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Applicant further argues that the claim as a whole is not directed towards a mental process since the process requires detecting and deleting expired messages in a much timelier manner when there are thousands of expired messages that need to be cleaned up, which cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See, specification at [0074]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3) Claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);”
By parity of reasoning a person can use a computer to examine a BRCA sequence akin to a file and observe the existence of alterations. In the same vein a person using a computer can observe that an expiration attribute of file has changed. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
From the above, a computer as a mere tool may be used to observe the status of a plurality of files and determine their expiration statuses.
Secondly, applicant’s representative argues that the claim 1 is analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins because it is directed to an improvement in messaging middleware systems, rather than to an abstract mental process. Specifically, claim 1 recites creating a bundle control file associated with a group of messages stored in persistent storage, the bundle control file includes respective pointers associated with respective ones of the messages in the bundle, respective expiration times associated with the respective ones of the messages in the bundle, and a last expiration time that equals a latest one of the respective expiration times. The claim further recites determining based on reading the bundle control file from the persistent storage that at least one of the messages in the bundle is expired and removing expired messages from the persistent storage accordingly. This mirrors the reasoning in Ex Parte Desjardins, where the PTAB found claims patent-eligible because they changed how the machine-learning system itself operated by introducing technical mechanisms that improved model performance while preserving system constraints. Likewise, claim 1 does not merely evaluate the information at a conceptual level. Instead, it introduces the bundle control files and a mechanism for grouping messages that enables the system to determine expiration status with significantly fewer input/output operations. By avoiding disk reading for each message individually, the claim improves storage efficiency and reduces the I/O overhead.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a technological solution to a technological problem and a technological improvement in messaging middleware systems, not to an abstract mental process, and therefore does not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not recite any form of machine learning and is not analogous to the reasoning in Ex Parte Desjardins. A file management system for example Windows File Manager of any version, has attributes in the files properties that is indicative of a file status. Within the GUI one can upon expansion of a file determine its expiration status based on the aid of the computer especially if files are grouped in a folder with a determinate expiration date.
Patent Eligibility Analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two
Applcant’s representative argues that assuming arguendo that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, applicant respectfully submits that the claim integrates any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by enabling efficient handling of expired messages in messaging middleware through the creation and use of a bundle control file, thereby reducing input/output operations and improving system performance. Claim 1 recites, in part, "... creating a bundle control file associated with a bundle that includes a group of messages stored in a persistent storage by a message-oriented middleware, wherein the bundle control file comprises: respective pointers ... respective expiration times ... a last expiration time ...; determining, based on reading the bundle control file from the persistent storage, that at least one of the messages in the bundle is expired; and removing, based on the determining, the at least one of the messages from the persistent storage ..." which recites a specific technical mechanism in which respective pointers and expiration times of each message and a last expiration time is consolidated into a structured bundle control file.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that applicant’s claimed invention is integrated into a practical solution. It is well know that files have pointers that connect them to their physical storage location. A physical storage determinant to store expired files will have such files with their pointers.
Patent Eligibility Analysis under Step 2B
Applicant’s representative concludes from arguments above that eligibility has been found under Step 2A Prong One and Two, the patent-eligibility analysis does not proceed to Step 2B.
Examiner, respectfully disagrees and with cogent reasons given above, eligibility has not been found under Step 2A Prong One and Two. Thus analysis under Step 2B is moot.
35 U.S.C. §103
4. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 12 -14, filed April 30th 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 requires respective expiration times associated with respective ones of the messages within a bundle control file associated with a bundle and consequently the duration of retention period is pre-defined, like the first set of messages 115(1) has a five-day retention period, and the second set of messages 115(2) has a thirty-day retention period. Thus, the Bolosky reference fails to teach or suggest a last expiration time that equals a latest one of the respective expiration times, as required by claim 1, because messages within a given set in Bolosky are associated with a common retention period.
Examiner respectfully submits that the Bolosky reference teaches applicant’s claimed limitation. The last expiration time is equal to a latest one of the respective expiration times. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation equates two statuses to a determined expiration time such that the occurrence of a “last expiration time” is equivalent to a “a latest one of the respective expiration times”. Thus where the Bolosky reference teaches the expiration of a retention period, such expired time is a respective expiration time [0076]
Claim Interpretation
5. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “bundle” as claimed and referenced in applicant’s Specification in paragraph [0023] is a logical grouping of elements stored on disk. The Bolosky reference (United States Patent Publication Number 20060271784) teaches in paragraph [0034] a data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101
6. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature , a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea.) without significantly more.
The claims are analyzed for subject matter eligibility using a two-part subject matter eligibility analysis (MPEP 2016).
Independent claim 1 recites, “a computer-implemented method, comprising:…” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “determining, based on reading the bundle control file from the persistent storage, that at least one of the messages in the bundle is expired.”
The limitation of determining a message has the status of being expired, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind using a generic machine/computer. The context of this claim encompasses a user manually analyzing a file element and observing that some of the columns data has an expired tag. These limitations may be properly identified as reciting the abstract idea of a “mental processes.” Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) falls within the grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
Secondly, the applicant is merely claiming the concept as performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept and thus the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Thus the step of “determining, based on reading the bundle control file from the persistent storage, that at least one of the messages in the bundle is expired” are observations and evaluations that can also be mentally made and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of, “creating a bundle control file associated with a bundle that includes a group of messages stored in a persistent storage by a message-oriented middleware, wherein the bundle control file comprises: respective pointers associated with respective ones of the messages in the bundle;”, “respective expiration times associated with the respective ones of the messages in the bundle;” and “a last expiration time that equals a latest one of the respective expiration times;” and “removing, based on the determining, the at least one of the messages from the persistent storage.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, the claim reciting the additional element of “creating a bundle control file with determined elements in it …” and “removing a message from the file based on an expired status“, amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Second, the steps of creating a file with elements and tagging an element in the file with an expired status is a mere form of data gathering. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Step 2B
The additional elements of, ““creating a bundle control file with determined elements in it …” and “removing a message from the file based on an expired status“ are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Reference is made to Snyder et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20080140820) that teaches in paragraph [0025], “remove prohibited objects (e.g., specific cookies or temporary files), remove expired objects,.”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “storing a new message in the persistent storage; and updating the bundle control file with a new pointer and a new expiration time associated with the new message.” These additional steps of “storing …. “ and “updating …” are mere data gathering steps. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
idependent claim 2 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “determining the new message has an expiration time later than the last expiration time; and updating the last expiration time to be equal to the expiration time associated with the new message.” These additional steps of “observing an expiration of a file element…. “ and “updating a data element based on the expired context …” are mere data gathering steps. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the bundle comprises a first bundle and the bundle control file comprises a first bundle control file, and further comprising: creating a second bundle control file associated with a second bundle that includes a second group of the messages different than the first group of the messages, wherein the second bundle control file comprises: respective pointers associated with respective ones of the messages in the second bundle;”, “respective expiration times associated with the respective ones of the messages in the second bundle;” and “a second bundle last expiration time that equals a latest one of the respective expiration times of the messages in the second bundle.” The steps of creating a file with elements and tagging an element in the file with an expired status is a mere form of data gathering. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 4 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “chaining the second bundle control file to the first bundle control file.” These additional steps of “chaining or linking a file to another” can be done mentally or using a paper and a pen. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “determining that at least one of the one of the messages in the bundle is expired comprises determining that all the messages in the bundle are expired based on the last expiration time.” These additional steps of “observing an expiration of a file element…. “can be done mentally or using a paper and a pen. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “determining the last expiration time has not occurred; and determining the at least one of the messages is expired based on the respective expiration times associated with the respective ones of the messages in the bundle..” These additional steps of “observing an expiration of a file element…. “can be done mentally or using a paper and a pen. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “reading one or more of the messages in the bundle from the persistent storage and into a memory of the message-oriented middleware.” Obtaining information from persistent storage recited on a generic computer is an insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have held computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 8 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the reading is performed based on determining the last expiration time has not occurred.” Obtaining information from persistent storage based on a data element recited on a generic computer is an insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have held computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 8 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the reading is performed based on the respective expiration times associated with the respective ones of the messages in the bundle.” Obtaining information from persistent storage based on a data element recited on a generic computer is an insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have held computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein: the messages were sent by a first node to a second node via the message-oriented middleware; and the storing the messages in the persistent storage is based on the first node having not received indication of receipt of the messages from the second node.” Obtaining information from persistent storage based on a data element recited on a generic computer is an insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have held computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Further storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; has been held as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the determining that the at least one of the messages in the bundle is expired is performed without reading the at least one of the messages from the persistent storage.” These additional steps of “reading a message from storage …. “are mere data gathering steps. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 corresponds to independent claim 1 but for the recitation of, “A computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to perform operations comprising...” These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of “A computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to perform operations comprising” That is, other than reciting " A computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to perform operations comprising," nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 13 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A/2B
The claim recites, “wherein the operations further comprise reading one or more of the messages in the bundle from the persistent storage and into a memory of the message-oriented middleware, wherein the reading is performed based on determining the last expiration time has not occurred.” These additional steps of “reading a message from storage based on observed status of the expiration of an element…. “are mere data gathering steps. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 11 and is rejected accordingly
Independent claim 17 corresponds to independent claim 1 but for the recitation of, “A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising:” These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of “A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising: That is, other than reciting " A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising:," nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 15 and is rejected accordingly
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 11 and is rejected accordingly
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ
459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolosky et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20060271784), in view of Mellen-Garnet et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20030093479), hereinafter referred to as Mellen-Garnet.
Regarding claim 1 Bolosky teaches a computer-implemented method, (Fig. 14 methods [0021], [0040]) comprising: creating a bundle control file (one or more log files 415 [0035]) such as “bundle control file” associated with a bundle (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle” that includes a group of messages stored in a persistent storage (message bodies 310 stored as they arrive in memory [0033], [0034]) wherein the bundle control file comprises: (one or more log files 415 [0035]) such as “bundle control file” respective pointers (metadata which enables subsequent location and collection of these various messages [0066]) such as “pointers” associated with respective ones of the messages (time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the bundle, (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle” respective expiration times associated with the respective ones of the messages(time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the bundle, (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle” and a last expiration time that equals a latest one of the respective expiration times; (Generally at or shortly after the expiration of the first retention period, indicated by the vertical line 1020 [0076]) determining, based on reading (reads from [0099]) the bundle control file (one or more log files 415 [0035]) such as “bundle control file” from the persistent storage, (memory [0033], [0034]) that at least one of the messages (time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the bundle(data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle” is expired; (some metadata 320 may describe message bodies 310 and/or log files 415 that have expired [0046]) and removing, (remove [0058]) SEE ALSO delete [0025], [0046], [0047], [0056], [0069] based on the determining, (expiration of retention period [0025]) the at least one of the messages (time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) from the persistent storage (memory [0033], [0034])
Bolosky does not fully disclose by a message-oriented middleware,
Mellen-Garnet by a message-oriented middleware, (Messaging
middle-ware, message oriented middleware (MOM) provides … MOM also provides the semantics for handling instances when the application is unavailable by queuing
their messages to a persistent store.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bolosky to incorporate the teachings of Mellen-Garnet wherein by a message-oriented middleware. By doing so When the application starts up again it retrieves its messages from the store, in the correct order, and processes them. This MOM implementation
also provide time-outs on messages in order to expire messages and generate errors requiring transaction abort and recovery in the collaboration. Mellen-Garnet [0132]
Claims 13 and 17 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 2 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Bolosky as modified further teaches further comprising: storing a new message (new messages bodies are stored [0036], [0047]in the persistent storage; (The messages 115 are routed to a management and storage system 125 for the time-bounded messages 115) [0023]) and updating (updates the metadata storage structure
325. [0053]) the bundle control file (one or more log files 415 [0035]) such as “bundle control file” with a new pointer (offset of the message [0085]) such as “pointer” and a new expiration time (Time-bounded messages 115 include those messages that are subject to some rule specifying how long they are retained. [0022]), (retention period [0057]) associated with the new message. (new messages bodies [0036], [0047])
Claims 14 and 18 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 3 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2,
Bolosky as modified further teaches further comprising: determining (determines [0059]) the new message (new messages bodies [0036], [0047]) has an expiration time later than the last expiration time; (Stale entries might include, for example, entries that correspond to time-bounded messages 115 that are older than the applicable retention period [0056])and updating (the server machines 305 can update the metadata storage structure 325 with an updated log blob 620 using an enhanced update transaction that updates log blob 620 to a new value if the current value is still what the server machine 305 originally read [0054]) the last expiration time (retention period of stale entries [0056]) to be equal to the expiration time (retention period [0057]) associated with the new message. (new messages bodies [0036], [0047])
Regarding claim 4 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Bolosky as modified further teaches wherein the bundle (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle” comprises a first bundle (any one of server(N) maintaining a data structure 405 into which message bodies 310 are stored as they arrive [0034]) such as “first bundle” and the bundle control file (one or more log files 415 [0035]) such as “bundle control file” comprises a first bundle control file, (one or more log files 415(1) and 415(N) (collectively, log files 415 or log file sets 415) hosted on respective storage machines
315. [0035]) such as “first bundle control file” and further comprising: creating a second bundle control file (one or more log files 415(1) and 415(N) (collectively, log files 415 or log file sets 415) hosted on respective storage machines 315. [0035]) such as “second bundle control file” associated with a second bundle (any one of server(N) maintaining a data structure 405 into which message bodies 310 are stored as they arrive [0034]) such as “second bundle” that includes a second group of messages different than the first group of the messages, (In block 725, the process 700 determines whether the time limit for writing to the current log file(s) 415 has been exceeded. As discussed in more detail elsewhere herein, a given log file 415 can be written to for a limited period of time. If the time limit for the current log file(s) 415 has been exceeded, the process 700 proceeds to block 730 to close the current log file(s) 415. The process 700 then proceeds to block 735 to open new log file(s) 415. Afterwards, the process 700 returns to decision block 725. [0060]) wherein the second bundle control file (one or more log files 415(1) and 415(N) (collectively, log files 415 or log file sets 415) hosted on respective storage machines 315. [0035]) such as “second bundle control file” comprises: respective pointers (the offset of the given message body 310 within its log file 415 [0037])associated with respective ones of the messages (time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the second bundle, (any one of server(N) maintaining a data structure 405 into which message bodies 310 are stored as they arrive [0034]) such as “second bundle” respective expiration times (For example, but not limitation, a given enterprise may specify a retention period of thirty days for messages 105 [0026])associated with the respective ones of the messages (the offset of the given message body 310 within its log file 415 [0037])in the second bundle; (any one of server(N) maintaining a data structure 405 into which message bodies 310 are stored as they arrive [0034]) such as “second bundle” and a second bundle last expiration time that equals a latest one of the respective expiration times (When the process 900 reaches the time marked by the line 1025, the process 900 recognizes that any metadata 320 written to the first table (block 920) is now too old to retain, because the entire second instance of the retention period has now expired. [0078])of the messages (For example, but not limitation, a given enterprise may specify a retention period of thirty days for messages 105 [0026])in the second bundle (any one of server(N) maintaining a data structure 405 into which message bodies 310 are stored as they arrive [0034]) such as “second bundle”
Regarding claim 5 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4,
Bolosky as modified further teaches further comprising chaining (the
log files 415 can be written to a set of tables in a batch. [0035]) such as “chaining” the second bundle control file (one or more log files 415(1) and 415(N) (collectively, log files 415 or log file sets 415) hosted on respective storage machines 315. [0035]) such as “second bundle control file” to the first bundle control file (one or more log files 415(1) and 415(N) (collectively, log files 415 or log file sets 415) hosted on respective storage machines 315. [0035]) such as “first bundle control file”
Regarding claim 6 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Bolosky as modified further teaches wherein the determining that at least one of the one of the messages (time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the bundle (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle” is expired (have expired [0046]) comprises determining that all the messages(time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the bundle are expired based on the last expiration time (FIG. 7 illustrates a process 700 performed to receive and store time-bounded messages 115. In block 705, the process 700 awaits either the arrival of a given timebounded message 115 or expiration of a timeout parameter associated with the data structure 405 … where it determines whether the time-out parameter associated with the data structure 405 has expired [0059]) (the time limit for writing to the current log file(s) 415 has been exceeded. [0060])
Regarding claim 7 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Bolosky as modified further teaches wherein the determining (determine [0059]) that at least one of the messages (time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the bundle (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle” is expired (have expired [0046])comprises: determining (determine [0059]) the last expiration time has not occurred; (If the time-out parameter has not expired [0059]) and determining the at least one of the messages(time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) is expired based on the respective expiration times (Stale entries might include, for example, entries that correspond to time-bounded messages 115 that are older than the applicable retention period. [0056]) associated with the respective ones of the messages (time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the bundle. (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle”
Regarding claim 8 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Bolosky as modified further teaches further comprising reading one or more of the messages (Fig. 12, (1205) read message [0085]) in the bundle (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle”
Bolosky as modified does not fully disclose from the persistent storage and into a memory of the message-oriented middleware.
Mellen-Garnet teaches from the persistent storage and into a memory of the message-oriented middleware. (MOM also provides the semantics for handling
instances when the application is unavailable by queuing their messages to a persistent store. When the application starts up again it retrieves its messages from the store, in the correct order, and processes them. [0132])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bolosky to incorporate the teachings of Mellen-Garnet wherein from the persistent storage and into a memory of the message-oriented middleware. By doing so sequential queuing with reliable delivery is achieved. Mellen-Garnet [0132]
Regarding claim 9 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8,
Bolosky as modified further teaches wherein the reading (Fig. 12, (1205) read message [0085]) is performed based on determining the last expiration time has not occurred. (If the time-out parameter has not expired [0059]) (is not older than the retention period [0069])
Regarding claim 10 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8,
Bolosky as modified further teaches wherein the reading (Fig. 12, (1205) read message [0085]) is performed based on the respective expiration times associated with the respective ones of the messages (Different ones of the messages 115
might be subject to one or more different retention periods. [0022]) in the bundle. (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle”
Regarding claim 11 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Bolosky as modified does not fully disclose, wherein: the messages were sent by a first node to a second node via the message-oriented middleware; and the storing the messages in the persistent storage is based on the first node having not received indication of receipt of the messages from the second node.
Mellen-Garnet teaches wherein: the messages were sent by a first node (ABS., The service module transfers messages between connectors) (Fig. 2, (104) messages are transferred by first connector [0034]) such as “first connector” to a second node (Fig. 2, (109) second connector [0035]) such as “second node” via the message-oriented middleware; (communication "middleware" [0124]) and the storing the messages in the persistent storage (queuing their messages to a persistent store. [0132])is based on the first node (first connector [0034]) such as “first connector” having not received indication of receipt of the messages (If an acknowledgment signal has not been
received, [0076]) from the second node (second connector [0035]) such as “second node”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bolosky to incorporate the teachings of Mellen-Garnet wherein: the messages were sent by a first node to a second node via the message-oriented middleware; and the storing the messages in the persistent storage is based on the first node having not received indication of receipt of the messages from the second node. By doing so then a check is made to determine if a time out has expired (804). Mellen-Garnet [0076]
Claims 16 and 20 correspond to claim 11 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 12 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Bolosky as modified further teaches, wherein the determining (determines [0059]) that the at least one of the messages(time-bounded messages 115 [0022]) in the bundle is expired (expiration of a timeout parameter associated with the data structure 405 … where it determines whether the time-out parameter associated with the data structure 405 has expired [0059]) (the time limit for writing to the current log file(s) 415 has been exceeded. [0060])is performed without reading the at least one of the messages from the persistent storage (if the data structure is full [0059])
Regarding claim 15 Bolosky in view of Mellen-Garnet teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13,
Bolosky as modified further teaches, wherein the operations further comprise reading one or more of the messages (Fig. 12, (1205) read message [0085]) in the bundle (data structure 405 for example a queue, a linked list, a stack, an array, or the like [0034]) such as “bundle” wherein the reading(Fig. 12, (1205) read message [0085]) is performed based on determining the last expiration time has not occurred. (If the time-out parameter has not expired [0059]) (is not older than the retention period [0069])
Bolosky as modified does not fully disclose from the persistent storage and into a memory of the message-oriented middleware.
Mellen-Garnet teaches from the persistent storage and into a memory of the message-oriented middleware. (MOM also provides the semantics for handling
instances when the application is unavailable by queuing their messages to a persistent store. When the application starts up again it retrieves its messages from the store, in the correct order, and processes them. [0132])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bolosky to incorporate the teachings of Mellen-Garnet wherein from the persistent storage and into a memory of the message-oriented middleware. By doing so sequential queuing with reliable delivery is achieved. Mellen-Garnet [0132]
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 15 and is rejected accordingly
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this
final action.
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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469)295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272 - 4098. The fax phone
number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-
8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information
for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more
information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have
questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center
(EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights