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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action on the merits in reply to application number 18/979,356 filed on 12/12/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08/15/2025 has been considered.
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 non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed method (claims 1-8), computer-implemented device (claims 9-14), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 15-20) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations describing steps for managing personal behavior or interactions (user based condition selection and rule determination for executing a service), and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
displaying each condition used to construct a rule and an evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition, wherein the evaluation indicator represents a degree of reasonableness of rule construction using the condition (The “displaying” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because this step displayed pursuant to eliciting a response/selection from a user; and furthermore this step is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the “displaying” is executed, whereas independent claims 9/15 rely on a generic computer to perform the “displaying,” and but for the generic computer implementation, the “displaying” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to display the condition/indicator with pen and paper. In addition, the “displaying” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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));
determining, in response to a selection operation of a user, conditions selected by the user from candidate conditions; determining, for each candidate condition, a temporary rule based on the candidate condition and the conditions already selected by the user (The “determining” steps describe activity considered for managing personal behavior or interactions because these steps directly tied to the user selection; and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the “determining” is executed, whereas independent claims 9/15 rely on a generic computer to perform the “determining,” and but for the generic computer implementation, the “determining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
testing a degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule based on historical service data (The “testing” step describes activity considered for managing personal behavior or interactions because this directly tied to the user selection and corresponding condition/rule; and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the “testing” is executed, whereas independent claims 9/15 rely on a generic computer to perform the “testing,” and but for the generic computer implementation, the “testing” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
determining, based on the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule, an evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (The “determining” step describes activity considered for managing personal behavior or interactions because this activity is directly tied to the user selection and corresponding condition/rule; and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the “determining” is executed, whereas independent claims 9/15 rely on a generic computer to perform the “determining,” and but for the generic computer implementation, the “determining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
displaying the evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (The “displaying” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because the displaying is performed in conjunction with a response/selection from a user and in the relation to operation of a user; and furthermore this step is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the “displaying” is executed, whereas independent claims 9/15 rely on a generic computer to perform the “displaying,” and but for the generic computer implementation, the “displaying” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to display the condition/indicator with pen and paper. In addition, the “displaying” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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));
determining a target rule in response to a determining operation of the user (The “determining” step describes activity considered for managing personal behavior or interactions because this activity is directly tied to the user selection and corresponding condition/rule and to the operation of a user; and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the “determining” is executed, whereas independent claims 9/15 rely on a generic computer to perform the “determining,” and but for the generic computer implementation, the “determining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion); and
when an invocation instruction for invoking the target rule is received, executing a service based on the target rule and service data corresponding to the invocation instruction (This step describes activity considered for managing personal behavior or interactions because this activity is directly tied to the user selection and corresponding condition/rule; and furthermore this activity is disembodied as recited in claim 1 because there is no computer, hardware, or discernible means by which the service is executed, whereas independent claims 9/15 rely on a generic computer to perform the service execution, and but for the generic computer implementation, this step could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
Independent claims 9 and 15 recite similar limitations as those set forth in claim 1 as discussed above, and have therefore been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Independent claims 9 and 15 include additional elements directed to computer-implemented device, one or more processors, and one or more tangible non-transitory machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform one or more operations (claim 9) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations (claim 15). The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the displaying steps are considered as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Independent claims 9 and 15 include additional elements directed to computer-implemented device, one or more processors, and one or more tangible non-transitory machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform one or more operations (claim 9) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations (claim 15).. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Notably, the Specification describes a litany of generic computing devices suggesting that virtually any computing device under the sun could be used to implement the invention (See, e.g., Spec. at par. [0145], noting for example that “A typical implementation device is a computer. Specifically, the computer can be, for example, a personal computer, a laptop computer, a cellular phone, a camera phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, a media player, a navigation device, an email device, a game console, a tablet computer, a wearable device, or a combination of any of these devices”). Accordingly, the generic computer implementation merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Even if the displaying steps are considered as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the claims. 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea(s) as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further details/steps falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings discussed above along with the same generic computing elements recited in the independent claims which, merely serve the purpose of tying the invention to a particular technological environment and which, as discussed above, is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims. The additional displaying activities (claims 2, 10, and 15-16) are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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).
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over LeGro et al. (US 2007/0088639, hereinafter “LeGro”) in view of Juneja et al. (US 2023/0252477, hereinafter “Juneja”) in view of Iyer et al. (US 2016/0092811, hereinafter “Iyer”).
Claims 1/9/15: As per claim 1, LeGro teaches a method for service execution (pars. 1, 16, and 18: methods and systems for auditing telecommunication billing data; tool provides an automated method of building business rules via a requirements; tool enables work flow management of the exceptions between multiple access service centers), wherein the method comprises:
displaying each condition used to construct a rule and an evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition, wherein the evaluation indicator represents…rule construction using the condition (Abstract, and pars. 20 and 39: e.g., rule-construction user interface comprises a plurality of rule condition parameter menus to construct an audit rule for at least one telecommunication billing attribute. In a particular embodiment, before baselining the audit rule, a user can test rule conditions against actual data, and the user can compare multiple versions of a single audit rule to determine which version successfully identifies exceptions; each audit rule comprises one or more conditions; For example, the level drop-down menu 22 may display "-Select Level-" and the value drop-down menu 24 may display "-Select Value-" after the user selection of the new-condition button 36. In this way, users can interactively construct one or more rule conditions to include in the audit rule);
determining, in response to a selection operation of a user, conditions selected by the user from candidate conditions (pars. 21-22, 32, and 39: receive a user selection of a condition parameter of a rule condition of the audit rule 14. The condition drop-down menu 20 includes a "with" option and a "without" option. Using the condition drop-down menu 20, the user constructs the condition part of the rule condition; various drop-down menus can be reset to default values in response to a user selection of the new-condition button 36. For example, the level drop-down menu 22 may display "-Select Level-" and the value drop-down menu 24 may display “-Select Value-" after the user selection of the new-condition button 36. In this way, users can interactively construct one or more rule conditions to include in the audit rule);
determining, for each candidate condition, a temporary rule based on the candidate condition and the conditions already selected by the user (Abstract and pars. 21, 39-44, and 50: rule-construction user interface 10 comprises a condition drop-down menu 20 to receive a user selection of a condition parameter of a rule condition; rule-construction user interface comprises a plurality of rule condition parameter menus to construct an audit rule; before baselining the audit rule, a user can test rule conditions against actual data, and the user can compare multiple versions of a single audit rule to determine which version successfully identifies exception; test user interface 42 allows any of the audit rules in the database 40 to be tested. The test user interface 42 comprises a rule menu 44 of the audit rules stored in the database 40. The rule menu 44 is receptive to user selections of which audit rule(s) are to be tested; rule-construction user interface 10 may include a new-condition button 36 to indicate that a new rule condition is to be constructed. The various drop-down menus can be reset to default values in response to a user selection of the new-condition button 36. For example, the level drop-down menu 22 may display "-Select Level-" and the value drop-down menu 24 may display "-Select Value-" after the user selection of the new-condition button 36. In this way, users can interactively construct one or more rule conditions to include in the audit rule);
displaying the evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (pars. 47-50 and Figs. 7-8: FIG. 7 is a screen shot of an embodiment of the results user interface 64. The results user interface 64 summarizes which audit rule and versions were tested, a number of exceptions detected for each audit rule/version, and a description of each audit rule/version; results user interface 64 summarizes which audit rule and versions were tested, a number of exceptions detected for each audit rule/version, and a description of each audit rule/version. The results user interface 64 details each of the exceptions 62 that were detected. For each exception, an indication of which version(s) detected the exception is displayed);
determining a target rule in response to a determining operation of the user (par. 48: Using the results user interface 64, the user can identify and select which version of the audit rule 14 is most accurate in detecting particular exceptions of interest. The exceptions displayed by the results user interface 64 are reviewed by the user to find a version that detects all desired exceptions, but does not produce false positives).
LeGro does not explicitly teach:
wherein the evaluation indicator represents a degree of reasonableness of rule construction using the condition;
testing a degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule based on historical service data;
determining, based on the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule, an evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition;
when an invocation instruction for invoking the target rule is received, executing a service based on the target rule and service data corresponding to the invocation instruction.
Juneja teaches:
wherein the evaluation indicator represents a degree of reasonableness of rule construction using the condition (pars. 8-11, 42, and 45: e.g., generating a quality metric for each respective rule of the plurality of rules, by automatically testing the plurality of rules against the second group of transactions; and identifying a subset of rules of the plurality of rules for which the respective quality metric exceeds a threshold value; rule impact validator evaluates the effectiveness [i.e., degree of reasonableness] of each rule on the past-alerted entities);
testing a degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule based on historical service data (pars. 8-11, 42, and 45: e.g., generating a quality metric for each respective rule of the plurality of rules, by automatically testing the plurality of rules against the second group of transactions [which may be for a second period of time, e.g., a historical time period]; and identifying a subset of rules of the plurality of rules for which the respective quality metric exceeds a threshold value; training dataset can be defined based on past experience of system developers, users, or operators, or may be determined algorithmically. In some implementations, several years' worth of data may be used; rule impact validator evaluates the effectiveness [i.e., reasonableness] of each rule on the past-alerted entities);
determining, based on the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule, an evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (pars. 8-11, 42, and 45: e.g., generating a quality metric [i.e., an evaluation indicator] for each respective rule of the plurality of rules, by automatically testing the plurality of rules against the second group of transactions; and identifying a subset of rules of the plurality of rules for which the respective quality metric exceeds a threshold value [i.e., an evaluation indicator]; In some implementations, several years' worth of data may be used; rule impact validator evaluates the effectiveness [i.e., an evaluation indicator] of each rule [which may include one or more candidate conditions] on the past-alerted entities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine LeGro with Juneja because the references are analogous since they are each directed to rule generation and construction features, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of rule construction for service execution, and because modifying the teachings of LeGro by incorporating Juneja’s feature for evaluating a degree of reasonableness of a rule, as claimed, would serve the motivation to ensure accuracy of a constructed rule (LeGro at par. 48; See also, Juneja at par. 144); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
LeGro and Juneja do not explicitly teach:
when an invocation instruction for invoking the target rule is received, executing a service based on the target rule and service data corresponding to the invocation instruction.
Iyer teaches:
when an invocation instruction for invoking the target rule is received, executing a service based on the target rule and service data corresponding to the invocation instruction (pars. 4-6, 15-16, 19, and 38-43: e.g., business rule deployment manager may communicate one or more instances of the plurality business rules retrieved from a first business rules management system (BMRS) to a rule execution server for use in the one or more business processes associated with the business unit. In some cases, the business rules may be deployed using a common deployment format; For example, insurance providers may implement business rules to define parameters when processing claims, underwriting and/or providing quotations for insurance policies, and/or providing annuities; business system interface may facilitate deployment of business rules to one or more rule execution servers when applying the rules to different business policies; deployment manager 345 may then deploy an instance of the selected business rule to a specified computing device, such as the rule execution server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine LeGro/Juneja with Iyer because the references are analogous since they are each directed to rule generation and construction features, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of rule construction for service execution, and because modifying the teachings of LeGro/Juneja by incorporating Iyer’s feature for executing a service based on a target rule upon receiving an invocation instruction, as claimed, in order to serve the motivation to deploy a business rule to ensure consistent operation across an enterprise (Iyer at pars. 1 and 15); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 9 and 15 are directed to a computer-implemented device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for performing substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and discussed above. LeGro, in view of Juneja/Iyer, teaches a computer-implemented device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for performing the limitations discussed above (LeGro at pars. 56-57 and Fig. 9: he herein-disclosed features performed by the tool may be directed by one or more computer processor; software that implements the disclosed methods may optionally be stored on a tangible storage medium; See also, Juneja at par. 8; See also, Iyer at pars. 20 and 44), and claims 9 and 15 are therefore rejected using the same references and for substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
Claims 2/10/16: Legro teaches wherein the displaying each condition used to construct a rule and an evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition comprises: … displaying at least one or more conditions and evaluation indicators corresponding to the one or more conditions (pars. 20, 47-50 and Figs. 7-8: each audit rule comprises one or more conditions; results user interface 64 summarizes which audit rule and versions were tested, a number of exceptions detected for each audit rule/version, and a description of each audit rule/version; results user interface 64 summarizes which audit rule and versions were tested, a number of exceptions detected for each audit rule/version, and a description of each audit rule/version. The results user interface 64 details each of the exceptions 62 that were detected. For each exception, an indication of which version(s) detected the exception is displayed), but does not teach determining a service conclusion corresponding to each piece of the historical service data, to determine each positive sample and each negative sample; for each condition used to construct the rule, determining a quantity of positive samples or negative samples that meet the condition; and determining, based on the quantity of the positive samples or the negative samples that meet the condition, the evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition.
However, Juneja teaches determining a service conclusion corresponding to each piece of the historical service data, to determine each positive sample and each negative sample; for each condition used to construct the rule, determining a quantity of positive samples or negative samples that meet the condition (par. 45: rules are then received by the rule impact validator 180. In an example, the rule impact validator evaluates the effectiveness of each rule on the past-alerted entities from the entity alert and issue warehouse 114, generating metrics for each rule such as the number, ratio, or fraction of true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), false negatives (FN), or combinations or functions thereof); determining, based on the quantity of the positive samples or the negative samples that meet the condition, the evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition (par. 45 and claim 5: e.g., rule impact validator evaluates the effectiveness of each rule on the past-alerted entities; generating metrics for each rule such as the number, ratio, or fraction of true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), false negatives (FN), or combinations or functions thereof. For example, “precision” is defined as TP/(TP+FP), while “recall” is defined as the fraction of true positives that are found vs. the total number of true positives that exist in the dataset. Precision and recall may capture more information in a single value than TP, FP, TN, or FN alone, and so may be preferred metrics in some implementations; Based on one or more of these metrics, high-performing rules can be identified, while low-performing rules are rejected; wherein the quality metric comprises at least one of a number or fraction of true positives, a number or fraction of false positives, a precision value, a recall value, an F1 value, or an FBeta value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of LeGro/Juneja/Iyer, Juneja’s features for determining positive and negative samples and determined based on a quantity thereof an evaluation indicator corresponding to a condition, as claimed, in order to serve the motivation to identify a rule version that is most accurate (Legro at pars. 48 and 50; See also, Juneja at par. 144); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable over the prior art
Claim 3-8, 11-14, and 17-20 are allowable over the prior art. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the combination of limitations directed to wherein the determining, based on the quantity of the positive samples or the negative samples that meet the condition, the evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition comprises: when the target rule is used to filter the positive samples, determining, based on the quantity of the positive samples that meet the condition and a total quantity of samples that meet the condition, the evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition; or when the target rule is used to filter the negative samples, determining, based on the quantity of the negative samples that meet the condition and a total quantity of samples that meet the condition, the evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition (as per claims 3/11/17), wherein the determining, for each candidate condition, a temporary rule based on the candidate condition and the conditions already selected by the user comprises: determining, in response to a selection operation of the user, a target condition from the conditions already selected by the user, and obtaining configuration data; determining, for the candidate condition, a connection relationship between the candidate condition and the target condition based on the configuration data; and adding, based on the connection relationship, the candidate condition to the conditions already selected by the user, to obtain the temporary rule, wherein: the connection relationship comprises at least one of an “AND” connection or an “OR” connection (as per claims 4/12/18), wherein the testing a degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule based on historical service data, and determining, based on the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule, an evaluation indicator corresponding to each candidate condition comprises: determining a service conclusion corresponding to each piece of the historical service data, to determine each positive sample and each negative sample; for the temporary rule, testing the temporary rule based on the each positive sample and the each negative sample to determine a quantity of samples that meet the temporary rule; determining a type of evaluation indicator in the testing based on configuration data, wherein the type of evaluation indicator comprises at least one of precision or recall; and when the type of evaluation indicator is precision, using samples that belong to a same type as samples that the target rule is used to filter, among the samples that meet the temporary rule, as correctly classified samples, using a ratio of a quantity of the correctly classified samples to a quantity of the samples that meet the temporary rule as the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule, and using the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule as the evaluation indicator of the candidate condition in the temporary rule; or when the type of evaluation indicator is recall, using a ratio of a quantity of positive samples among the samples that meet the temporary rule to a total quantity of positive samples among all samples as the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule, and using the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule as the evaluation indicator of the candidate condition in the temporary rule (as per claims 5/13/19), and wherein the determining, for each candidate condition, a temporary rule based on the candidate condition and the conditions already selected by the user comprises: determining, in response to a selection operation of the user, a target condition from the conditions already selected by the user, and obtaining configuration data; determining a type of evaluation indicator in the testing based on the configuration data; and when the type of evaluation indicator is rule similarity, replacing, for the candidate condition, the target condition with the candidate condition to obtain the temporary rule (claims 6/14/20 and 7-8 by inheritance since they depend from claim 6). However, claims 3-8, 11-14, and 17-20 are not allowed because they stand rejected under 35 USC §101 as discussed above. In addition, even if these rejections are overcome, claims 3-8, 11-14, and 17-20 would be objected to as dependent upon rejected base claims and would be allowable only if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
H. Xu, L. Ren and W. Wang, "A Service Selection Method Based on Ordinal Classification for Historical Records," in IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1321-1333, 1 May-June 2022: discloses a service selection method based on classification of historical records.
Williams et al. (US Patent No. 6,934,696): discloses a customer rule system/method for expert systems.
Dresdner et al. (US Patent No. 8,954,371): discloses features for dynamic selection of rules, including testing facts against conditions within rules (see, e.g., col. 9 lines 12-28).
Junker et al. (US 2015/0170069): discloses features for transforming generalized rules in a rule management system, including conditions of specific rules consisting of logical tests (par. 9).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
05/22/2026
Prosecution Insights