Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, if no statutory category rejection was given above, then the claims have been determined to have a statutory category.
At step 2a, prong one, referring to claim 1, as emphasized, there is claimed obtaining alerts, assigning alerts to buckets, distributing alerts to jobs, each job executed in parallel, grouping alerts, generating a hash marker in a synchronization table, using the table to determine completion, generating a notification, and displaying a single notification on a GUI. Claim 1 recited, “A computer-implemented method for grouping alerts in a scale-out environment having a plurality of processing resources, the method comprising: obtaining a plurality of alerts, each alert of the plurality of alerts associated with a respective cause for the alert; assigning each alert to a respective bucket of a plurality of buckets based on separation criteria; distributing the alerts across a plurality of grouping jobs based on the assigned respective bucket, each grouping job being a respective process executing on one or more of the plurality of processing resources and associated with one or more buckets of the plurality of buckets, the plurality of grouping jobs being executed in parallel on the plurality of processing resources; for each grouping job: grouping the alerts within each bucket based on the respective cause for each alert; and generating a respective hash marker indicating a completion status of the grouping job in a synchronization table; determining, based on the synchronization table, that the plurality of grouping jobs has completed; based on determining that the plurality of grouping jobs has completed, generating, for each group of alerts, a single notification; and causing the single notification to be displayed via a graphical user interface (GUI).” Claims 18 and 20 are similar.
The limitations of obtaining, assigning, distributing, grouping, generating, determining, and generating are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, nothing in these claim elements as emphasized precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, possibly with the aid pen and paper. For example, these steps perform steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim additionally recites a generic computer capable of parallel processing and displaying a notification in a GUI.
The computer is recited at a high level of generality. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Concurrent execution is a further aspect of generic computing.
The limitations of displaying a notification in a GUI is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At step 2b, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are the additional elements of a generic computer and notifying.
The limitations regarding use of a computer (including concurrent execution) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP2106.05(d), for example TLI Communications, Flook, Alice Corp, and Versata. Further, see for example US 20090295812 A1 paragraph 56, US 20070061796 A1 paragraph 5, US 20110161935 A1 paragraph 4, US 20140033221 A1 paragraph 2-4, US 20040093484 A1 paragraph 3, US 20240160602 A1 paragraph 2, US 20090024830 A1 paragraph 5-8.
The limitation of notifying is considered well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). GUIs for the use of displaying such information are also considered well understood, routine, and conventional. See for example US 20050010416 A1 paragraph 125, US 20090150812 A1 paragraph 3, US 20130007655 A1 paragraph 4, US 20230047295 A1 paragraph 23.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Further referring to claims 2-5, this further describes steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Further referring to claim 6, this describes the data output.
Further referring to claim 7, at step 2a prong two, remediation describes an additional limitation that further does not integrate into practical application, merely adding words equivalent to "apply it" that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception as the performed operation is an insignificant application of the abstract mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Further, performing is recited at a high level of generality. Performing is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes a person may perform, using the computer components as a tool. At step 2b, remediation, as discussed above, represents merely adding words equivalent to "apply it" and is insignificant extra-solution activity, and is a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Further, this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. With respect to remediation, the courts have found limitations directed to insignificant application, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g), In re Brown or Ameranth.
Further referring to claim 8, at step 2a prong one, determining a volume describes a step of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Scaling the number of grouping jobs may describe a process by which work is assigned, which a method of organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). “Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). These limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
At step 2a prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2b, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See above regarding additional element analysis.
Further referring to claims 11-12, 14, this further describes steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Further referring to claim 15, resassigning may describe a process by which work is assigned and updating the table describes a step of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See claim 8 above.
Further referring to claims 16-17, this further describes data.
Further referring to claim 19, see claim 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 9) that characterizing each grouping job executed in parallel is a method of organizing human activity, see claim as amended and now rejected above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 10) that generating a hash marker and determining completion using a synchronization table cannot be done by a human mind as it requires parallel processing, see rejection above that identifies an instance of operation vs the well-understood, routine, and conventional application of parallel instances. Further, regarding “real-time”, see invention as claimed. But even had Applicant claimed real-time, note that this merely implies some broad timing constraint.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 10) that the human mind cannot render a notification on a GUI, see rejection above which identifies this as additional.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 10) that this combination of elements is beyond any mental process of method of organizing human activity, see above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 11) the claim as a whole provides a technical solution to the technical problem of computational bottlenecks when computations are handled in a single job, Applicant has merely applied a generic computing technique to an abstract idea, using a generic computer in the service of a technique of analysis regarding a technical environment. Applicant should similarly consider the step from a human receiving and deciphering alerts to a computer receiving those same alerts and processing them in a single job. Both merely use a generic computer to perform the process of analysis, albeit in in a presumably expedited manner. A computer in that case “alleviates the bottleneck” of human capacity. Parallel processing similarly merely further increases computational capacity in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 12) that the invention as claimed is a specific technological implementation with specific operational architecture, this appears to be referring to parallel processing. See above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 13) that the hash, synchronization table, and display are a particular solution to a problem to achieve a desired outcome, these are at best describing an analytic solution regarding a technological environment and does not improve the technological environment itself. The display in particular is merely for necessary data output.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 13) that parallel execution to perform distribution, hash, read a table, and notify in a GUI integrate the concept of grouping alerts, see above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 14) the claimed invention improves the functioning of the scale-out computer environment, this scale-out computer environment is merely used to perform the abstract concepts and is not itself improved. Instead, the abstract concepts are themselves for the purpose of notification and the identified additional elements are only insignificantly extrasolution to the determination of alerting.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL L CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-3656. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 8 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571)272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GABRIEL CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights