DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 30 December 2025.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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/Remarks
The objections to the claims have been remedied by amendment and are withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been remedied by amendment and are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Examiner has not established that the character of the claims, viewed in their entirety, is directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Remarks at 6-7. The question at Step 2A Prong One is: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Every single limitation in a claim need not recite a judicial exception in order the claims to recite a judicial exception. Limitations that fall outside of the judicial exception are analyzed under “additional elements” in later steps of the analysis. In the present claims, the majority of the limitations, as set out in the rejection, fall into at least one, if not more than one, abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that “the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology because they require execution of metadata parsers, inference engines, AI-assisted reasoning models, structured data transformations, and API-based machine-to-machine integrations operating across distributed computing environments. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.” Remarks at 7. These limitations, where claimed, are analyzed under “additional elements” in Step 2B Prong Two and Step 2B. Their presence in the claims does not preclude the claims from falling into at least one the abstract idea groupings and thus “failing” subject matter eligibility at Step 2A Prong One.
Applicant argues that claimed limitations “define a concrete technical workflow that improves how enterprise analytics systems generate, validate, and maintain machine-executable business glossaries. The claimed invention addresses a technological problem arising specifically in computerized analytics environments, namely, the inability of conventional systems to maintain consistent, accurate, and up-to-date metric definitions across decentralized self-service reporting platforms. … Moreover, the claims improve the functioning of the computer itself by enabling automated, dynamic, and scalable glossary generation and governance, reducing the need for manual intervention, eliminating redundant metric definitions, and improving interoperability between analytics systems” Remarks at 8. While a technical solution to a technical problem may be present in the specification, it is not yet recited in the claims. For example, a solution to “the inability of conventional systems to maintain consistent, accurate, and up-to-date metric definitions across decentralized self-service reporting platforms” that is technical in nature may be considered a “practical application” in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, but this is not recited in the claims. The claims do not currently recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Mere utilization of “off-the-shelf” artificial intelligence or use of APIs, for example, is merely implementation of a judicial exception with known tools.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 11 recite “executing an artificial intelligence-assisted reasoning engine that evaluates metadata-derived metric definitions against usage frequency, aggregation logic, and report hierarchy relationships, thereby improving computerized glossary generation and maintenance.” The phrase “thereby improving computerized glossary generation and maintenance” is an intended result and is not given patentable weight.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “generate aliases and synonyms for metrics to enhance usability and interpretation.” The phrase “to enhance usability and interpretation” is an intended result and is not given patentable weight.
Claims 6 and 16 recite “wherein the repository is exposed as an application programming interface for integration with business intelligence tools and automated decision-making platforms.” The phrase “for integration with business intelligence tools and automated decision-making platforms” is an intended use and is not given patentable weight.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “encode metrics for machine-readability to support integration with AI systems.” The phrase “to support integration with AI systems” is an intended use and is not given patentable weight.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “provide human-readable definitions for enhanced stakeholder collaboration.” The phrase “for enhanced stakeholder collaboration” is an intended result and is not given patentable weight.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claim 1) The “analyzing a frequency and an adoption of a plurality of self-service reports within a business by programmatically retrieving report usage telemetry and metadata via one or more application programming interfaces” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via one or more application programming interfaces” language, the claim encompasses a user manually analyzing reports. Thus, this claim recites a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. This claim recite an abstract idea.
(Claim 1) The “inferring a business correctness of the business glossary comprising metrics” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “application server configured to host an application program configured to:” language, the claim encompasses a user manually inferring correctness of the glossary. Thus, this claim recites a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. This claim recite an abstract idea.
(Claim 11) The “analyzing, via a computing device, metadata from a plurality of self-service reports to extract numeric measurements and associated business logic by programmatically retrieving report usage telemetry and metadata via one or more application programming interfaces” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via one or more application programming interfaces” language, the claim encompasses a user manually analyzing metadata. Thus, this claim recites a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. This claim recite an abstract idea.
(Claim 11) The “inferring, via the computing device, key performance metrics by analyzing report usage patterns, adoption rates, and metadata filters” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via the computing device” language, the claim encompasses a user manually making inferences using known data. Thus, this claim recites a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. This claim recite an abstract idea.
(Claim 11) The “validating, via the computing device, inferred metrics by comparing usage data and metadata characteristics to historical trends” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via the computing device” language, the claim encompasses a user manually making comparing data to determine validation. Thus, this claim recites a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. This claim recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 2 and 12) The “processing one or more self-service reports, dashboards, and visualizations to identify numeric measurements, contextual filters, and associated business logic via a metadata extraction module” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via a metadata extraction module” language, the claims encompass a user manually making identifications while processing given information. Thus, these claims recite a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 3 and 13) The “analyzing one or more metadata filters, report hierarchies, and relationships between reports and constituent metrics via an inference engine” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via an inference engine” language, the claims encompass a user manually analyzing data. Thus, these claims recite a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 4 and 14) The “utilizing usage frequency and adoption patterns as proxies for metric correctness” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a user manually utilizing certain data as proxies for other data. Thus, these claims recite a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 4 and 14) The “integrating business logic extracted from metadata to validate semantic relationships between metrics” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a user manually making a validation decision using known information. Thus, these claims recite a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 5 and 15) The “categorize metrics based on contextual relationships” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “a semantic enrichment engine configured to:” language, the claims encompass a user manually categorizing data. Thus, these claims recite a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 5 and 15) The “generate aliases and synonyms for metrics to enhance usability and interpretation” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “a semantic enrichment engine configured to:” language, the claims encompass a user manually generating aliases and synonyms. Thus, these claims recite a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 8 and 18) The “continuously tracking and logging changes to the business glossary over time” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a user manually tracking and logging changes. Thus, these claims recite a limitation that falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 1-20) These claims recite the concept of generation of a business glossary through analysis of business reports (see, for example, “analyzing a frequency and an adoption of a plurality of self-service reports within a business by programmatically retrieving report usage telemetry and metadata via one or more application programming interfaces; generating a business glossary via at least one self-service dashboard based on the analyzing by transforming extracted metadata into a standardized metric data model executable by the computing device; and inferring a business correctness of the business glossary comprising metrics by executing an artificial intelligence-assisted reasoning engine that evaluates metadata-derived metric definitions against usage frequency, aggregation logic, and report hierarchy relationships, thereby improving computerized glossary generation and maintenance” in claim 1). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including business relations. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a system comprising at least one computing device in operable communication with a network, an application server in operable communication with the at least one computing device over the network, the application server configured to host an application program, an application programming interface, an artificial intelligence-assisted reasoning engine (found in claims 1-10); a computing device, an application programming interface, an artificial intelligence-assisted reasoning engine (found in claims 11-20); a metadata extraction module (found in claims 2 and 12); an inference engine (found in claims 3 and 13); a semantic enrichment engine (found in claims 5 and 15); an application programming interface (found in claims 6 and 16); an artificial intelligence model (found in claims 7 and 17); and machine learning models (found in claims 9 and 19) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The above elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622