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 .
This office action is responsive to communication filed on 02/17/2025.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 1-7 are directed to an apparatus.
Claims 8-20 are directed to a process.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception recited)
The limitation “communicate such that for each instruction received from each said assignment computer connection, the instruction including a specification of a set of elements to be tested to determine whether any element of the set satisfies a condition” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement and/or a math calculation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine whether any element of the set satisfies a condition. Additionally, communicating Y ≥ 2, and X ≥ Y + 2 to two or more worker computers is a math calculation
The limitation “assign the instruction to one said worker computer connection” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement and/or a math calculation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper assign the instruction to one said worker computer connection.
The limitation “indicate to the assignment computer connection from which the instruction was received that no response was received if the response is not received from the one said worker computer connection” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement and/or a math calculation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper indicate to the assignment computer connection from which the instruction was received that no response was received.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integrated into a practical application):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “communicate via Y worker computer connections, such that Y ≥ 2, to two or more worker computers, with at least one worker computer connection to each worker computer” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “communicate via X assignment computer connections, such that X ≥ Y + 2, to a group of one or more assignment computers” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “send the instruction to the one said worker computer connection” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
The limitation “send the response to the assignment computer connection from which the instruction was received if a response is received from the one said worker computer connection, the response including identification, if any, of the elements specified in the instruction that satisfies the condition” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
The limitation “director computer and worker computer” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (claim provides an inventive concept):
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “communicate ….steps” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … 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);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "send…, steps" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in displaying information as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … 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)".
With respect to the “director computer and worker computer” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claim 8 and 15 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2 - 7, 9 – 14, and 16 - 20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bantukul et al (US 2014/0233389) discloses methods, systems, and computer readable media for providing a thinking diameter network architecture.
Nimal Gamini SENARATH (US 2018/0316564) discloses a service provision for offering network slices to a customer.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights