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
This office action is responsive to amendment submitted on 7/22/2026. Claims 1 and 20 are amended. Claims 4,8,9, and 17-19 are previously cancelled. Consequently, claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-16 and 20 are pending examination.
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 1-3, 5-7, 10-16 and 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.
Claim 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim 20 is drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture. As such, claims 1, and 20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-16 and 20 are directed to selecting specific agents responsible for processing messages in publish/subscribe messaging system. Specifically, the claims recite determining, at a management system of a publish/subscribe messaging system, processing to be carried out in respect of messages within the publish/subscribe messaging system, wherein the publish/subscribe messaging system comprises a data broker which receives and publishes messages in accordance with a publish/subscribe messaging protocol and a publisher client which publishes messages in accordance with the publish/subscribe messaging protocol, and wherein the management system is additionally connected to a plurality of agents operable to access and process messages at respective locations within the publish/subscribe messaging system, selecting one or more agents within the publish/subscribe messaging system to perform the processing based on the relative locations within the publish/subscribe messaging system of the one or more agents and a data source which generates a data stream, and transmitting to the one or more agents respective instructions which cause the one or more agents to perform the processing in respect of the messages, wherein the instructions comprise mapping information indicating how data associated with the data stream is encoded within messages in the publish/subscribe messaging system, and wherein the instructions comprise instructions to extract data associated with the data stream from one or more of the messages using the mapping information, and to transmit an indication to the management system based on the data extracted from the one or more messages., which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as memories, processors and display merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the memories, processors and display perform(s) the steps or functions of transmitting to the one or more agents respective instructions which cause the one or more agents to perform the processing in respect of the messages. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a memories, processors and display to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of selecting specific agents responsible for processing messages in publish/subscribe messaging system. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the memories, processors and display perform(s) the steps or functions of transmitting to the one or more agents respective instructions which cause the one or more agents to perform the processing in respect of the messages. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of selecting specific agents responsible for processing messages in publish/subscribe messaging system. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16 further describe the abstract idea of selecting specific agents responsible for processing messages in publish/subscribe messaging system. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection, of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The applicant argues that the amended claims are not described at a high level of generality because the claimed steps are specifically performed by a management system that selects agents within publish/subscribe messaging system.
Response. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The management system and its recited functions have been considered as part of the claim as a whole. Requiring a management system to determine processing, select agents, and transmit instructions father specifies which component performs the information processing operations, but does not itself establish as improvement to the functioning of the computer, network or publish/subscribe messaging system.
The applicant argues that the claimed invention improves messaging-system efficiency and reduces processing required at subscriber clients or other receivers, as described in paragraph (0009) of the specification.
Response. The examiner has considered paragraph (0009). Although the paragraph states that examples “can provide” an improved messaging system, that efficiency “can be improved”, and that processing “can be reduced”, claim 1 does not require a reduction in subscriber processing, network traffic, computational load, latency, bandwidth usage, or energy computation. Therefore, the asserted benefits described in paragraph (0009) are potential benefits and are not required across the full scope of claim 1.
The applicant argues that reducing processing can reduce energy consumption and therefore constitutes a technical improvement to the field of messaging systems.
Response. The argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not require reduced energy consumption or even a reduction in the overall amount of processing performed by the messaging system, A potential result of a p[articular implementation does not establish that the claim itself reflects that technological improvement.
The applicant argues that the claimed agents supplement the conventional relationship between publisher clients and the data broker and provide processing efficiency and adaptability that were unavailable or difficult to implement in conventional systems.
Response. The claimed agents have been considered. However, claim 1 broadly requires agents capable of accessing and processing messages and selection of such agents by management system. The claim does not require modification of the publish/subscribe protocol or a particular improvement in the operation of the broker, publisher client, or communication network. The agents instead provide locations at which the claimed processing maybe performed.
The applicant argues that an agent may retain publisher-client messages and process a number of messages before they are sent to the data broker, thereby reducing network traffic.
Response. The asserted improvement is not required by claims 1. Claim 1 does not require the agent to hold multiple messages, process multiple messages before sending then to the broker. Combine messages, or reduce the amount of network traffic. Therefore, the reduction is network traffic discussed by the applicant may occur in some examples, but it is not required by the claim.
The applicant argues that the agents offload processing tasks from the broker and/or publisher to a separate entity, thereby reducing the processing power.
Response. Claim 1 does not require processing to be moved from the broker or publisher to a separate entity. It simply requires selecting an agent and instructing the agent to perform processing. The claim also does not require that processing at the broker, publisher, or any other node actually be reduced. Therefore, the claims method does not necessarily provide reduction in processing relied upon by the applicant.
The applicant argues that selecting agents based on their relative locations to the data source provide specific technical arrangement that improves the messaging system.
Response. The examiner considered this limitation. Selecting an agent based on its location provides a way to decide which agent will perform the processing. However, claims 1 does not require that this selection reduce network traffic, processing time, bandwidth use, or processing load. Thus, the limitation determines where the processing takes place, but does not necessarily improve how the messaging system itself operates.
The applicant argues that transmitting respective instructions to the selected agents provides a specific technological implementation.
Response. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The instructions tell the selected agents what processing to perform. Claim 1 does not require a particular manner of transmitting or executing the instructions. Further, paragraph (0209) states the processors maybe of any suitable type, including general-purpose computers and application-specific integrated circuits. Therefore, the specification does not identify a particular processor arrangement required to carrying out these instructions. The limitation therefore directs the agent to perform the claimed processing, but does not itself show an improvement in how the computer or messaging system operates.
The applicant argues that the mapping information indicating how data associated with the data stream is encoded within messages provides additional technological specificity.
Response. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The mapping information tells an agent how data is represented in a message so that the agent can extract the data. Claim 1does not require a new message format, encoding technique, or messaging protocol. Paragraph (0209) also indicates that the processing may be performed using processors of any suitable type. Therefore, the mapping information provides information used in carrying out the clamed processing, rather than requiring an improvement to the computer or publish/subscribe messaging technology itself.
The applicant argues that the claimed arrangement improves computer/network functionality by reducing processing at a given node and reducing data traffic.
Response. The examiner disagrees. Claim 1 does not require reduction in processing or network traffic. The claimed method do can be performed by selecting an agent, transmitting instructions and mapping information, extracting data, and returning an indication without requiring any reduction in the network traffic or processing at another node. Paragraph (0209) further describes the processors broadly as any suitable type and does not identify a particular processor configuration that produces the asserted reduction. Therefore, the reductions relied upon by the applicant may be possible benefits of certain embodiments, but they are not required by claim1.
The applicant argues that the claimed improvement is analogous to Enfish because the claims provide a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.
Response. The examiner respectfully disagrees. IN Enfish, the claimed self-referential table provided a specific improvement in the way the computer stored and retrieved data. Here, claims 1 does not require similar improvement to a data structure, message protocol, processor, or network operation. Rather, the claim uses publish/subscribe messaging system to select an agent, provide instructions and mapping information, process message data, and return an indication. Paragraph (0209), further states that the processors may be of any suitable type, including general-purpose computers and application-specific integrated circuits. This broad disclosure does not identify a particular improved computer architecture required by claim 1. Therefore, the claims subject matter is distinguishable from the specific computer functionality improvement in Enfish.
The applicant argues that the Office Action looks at the claims too generally and fails to account for the management system, agents, relative-location selection and processing instruction.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations have been considered individually and together. Claim 1 requires the management system to determine processing, select an agent based on relative location, transmit instructions and mapping information, cause the agent to extract and receive an indication based on the extracted data. These limitations describe ho the information processing is distributed and performed within the messaging system. Paragraph (0209) further indicates that the underlying processors maybe of any suitable type. Therefore, even considering the limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not require the particular improvement in computer or network operation relied upon.
The applicant argues under MPEP 2106.049d) and 2106.05(a) that the claim as a whole provides an improvement to computer or network functionality.
Response. The examiner agrees that the claim must be considered as a whole and that improvement described in the specification must be considered. Paragraph (0009) describes examples in which messaging efficiency may be improved and processing maybe reduced. However, claim 1 does not require reduced processing, network traffic, or energy consumption. Moreover, paragraph (0209) broadly states that the processors may be of any suitable type, including general purpose computers and application specific integrated circuits. Thus, while the specification describes possible benefits, claim 1 does not require the particular technological improvement relied upon by applicant.
The applicant argues that, under step 2A, Prong Two, the claim as a whole integrates the judicia exception into a practical application.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The management system, agents, location-based selection, instructions, mapping information, data extraction, and retuned indication have been considered together as an ordered combination. These limitations describe a particular arrangement for carrying out the claimed information processing within a publish/subscribe messaging system. However, claim 1 does not require the reductions in network traffic, processing, or energy consumption relied upon by the applicant. Paragraph (0209) further indicates that the processing may be implemented using processors of any suitable type. Accordingly, the claim does not require a particular improvement in the functioning of the computer or messaging system and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Although the specification describes examples that may improve messaging efficiency, reduce processing, network traffic, or energy consumption, these asserted improvements are not required by the claims. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claimed management system, agents, location-based selection, instructions, mapping information, and data processing describe how information is processed withing the publish/subscribe messaging system, but not require improvement to the functioning of the computer, network or messaging system itself. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under 2A, Prong Two, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C.is maintained.
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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights