DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant has amended the claims to recite performing a network operation to correct the anomaly using the adjusted first entry. The examiner does not find support for such correction. The Specification, in paragraph 0004, recites addressing the anomaly, but does not recite a network operation to correct it. The applicant states paragraph 0005 supports this language, but the examiner contends the language merely teaches the selection of corrective actions to adjust the parameters, not the corrective action performed by the network operation using the adjusted parameter value.
3.
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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing a mental process and mathematical calculations without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-13 describe a system, claims 14-19 describe a method, and claim 20 describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-11
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites receiving a selection to view data on a GUI of a plurality of entity accounts, executing an anomaly function, identify parameters based on the function, determine ranges of values for the parameters, detect an anomaly corresponding to a parameter out of range using an ML model, select an action to address the anomaly and perform an operation responsive to said action. The examiner interprets these limitations as merely a mental process using a computer or computing components as a tool. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve using collected data to make determinations of an anomaly using said data and selecting an action to correct/address the anomaly. The examiner interprets the network operation being performed to address the anomaly as merely presenting an action with any network communication, such as an email. Again, this could be interpreted as a user performing a mental process with a computer as a tool or in a computer environment as sending an email is likened to a pen and paper with mailing.
The applicant has amended the claim to recite “correct” rather than “address”. As rejected above, the examiner does not find support for this and, in lieu, interprets the “correct” language as equivalent to “address”.
The applicant has amended the claim to recite comparing a first and second entry corresponding to a parameter, and if there is a mismatch, adjust the first entry. The examiner interprets this new language as a mental process as comparing data and adjusting data can be performed via a human mind using a generic computer or ML model as a tool to assist the mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 recites using a timer in correlation to displaying the collected data as determined by a user selection. The examiner interprets these limitations as merely a user performing a mental process on a computer.
Claims 4-5, 9, 11 recite more user interaction and resultant displays.
Claim 7 recites types of data being collected.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 12-13 recite more user determinations and basic mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims 2-11 each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites a processor, a memory and a GUI. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 1 further recites analyzing collected data for determination of an anomaly, and performing an action to correct/address the anomaly. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, display of results, and generically applying a resolution to an unidentified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claim 1-13 recite the use of machine learning model. The limitations in the claims merely describe the use of machine learning without any specification of details pertaining to how the associated machine learning model is trained other than suing inputted data to produce output data. Such details would include description of specific algorithms used in training the machine learning model. As currently written, the limitations in the amended claims describe certain types of data and mathematical calculations and evaluations performed on the data. The mathematical calculations and evaluations describe mathematical concepts that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
Claims 2-13 further recite data analysis, display and mathematical concepts. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The processor, memory and GUI devices recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of object information, display of data and of calculation results, and generically applying a resolution to an unidentified problem describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Claims 1-13 recite limitations regarding the use of machine learning and the training of a machine learning model. As discussed above in the Step 2A - Prong 2 analysis regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations, as currently written, describe mathematical calculations and evaluations describe mathematical concepts that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 14-19
Claims 14-19 contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-13, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 14-19 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-13.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 14-19 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 14-19 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claim 20
Claim 20 contains limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claim 1, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 for claim 20 is similar to that presented above for claim 1.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium.” The computer-readable medium and processors cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The enabling of the processors to troubleshoot a performance problem recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The applicant has amended the claims with art objected (rejected under USC 101) matter of prior claim 7 and has overcome the art rejection.
The applicant has also argued the newly added limitations overcome the USC 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the above rejections, the crux of the argument against the USC 101 rejection is the new language to “correct” the anomaly and the examiner cannot find support for the new language (see USC 112 rejection). Furthermore, without any detail of what a correction entails, one can interpret it as merely addressing the anomaly as was recited prior. Without proper detail the examiner interprets the language as equivalent to the MPEP “apply it” section, as recited in section 2106.05(f). The examiner maintains the claims do not recite adequate details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.”
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 CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights