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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on July 17, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-23 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding art rejection filed on July 17, 2026 have been considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection. Applicant arguments regarding 101 rejection are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues, the amended limitation “parallel processor” overcome the 101 rejection.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. The parallel processor is nothing but a generic computer component which is well‐understood, routine, and conventional. The courts have recognized the well‐understood, routine, and conventional component as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, 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)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, applicant argument is not persuasive.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-23 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. Applicant disclosure fails to disclose “using at least one parallel processor to perform parallel processing operations” as recited in all independent claims. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are rejected based on their respective dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. All independent claims recited “using at least one parallel processor to perform parallel processing operations”. The limitation is ambiguous and fails to provide clear meaning. Parallel processors cannot be one processor. There must be at least two processors. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are rejected based on their respective dependency.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites using at least one parallel processor to perform parallel processing operations that comprise: classifying a plurality of rules based on a plurality of pre-defined rule-taxonomy categories; organizing the plurality of rules as classified in a hierarchical taxonomy structure within a taxonomy-based datastore; testing the plurality of rules as organized with the hierarchical taxonomy structure; validating the plurality of rules as organized with the hierarchical taxonomy structure in response to successful testing of the plurality of rules; receiving, by the at least one processor, using a policy and rule manager, a trigger event from a service for execution of a plurality of rules associated with a plurality of policies; retrieving a set of rule details for the plurality of rules from a taxonomy-based datastore; retrieving a dataset for applying the plurality of rules, from the taxonomy-based datastore; applying the plurality of rules to the dataset to trigger execution of the plurality of rules; executing the plurality of rules for performing an action; and storing a result of the action in the taxonomy based datastore; implementing, in at least one from among a python language and a Java language, a rule executor that performs the validating and the executing of the plurality of rules.
The claim recited the limitation of classifying ---, organizing --, testing ---, and validating -- as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally classify information and organize it thinking in brain by memorizing it, and test it by mentally checking and validate it using physical aid such as pencil and paper. Hence, the limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). Further, the limitation “executing, by the at least one processor, the plurality of rules for performing an action and storing, by the at least one processor, a result of the action in the taxonomy based datastore” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally verify (execute) the rule by reading it and memorize (store) the result. Therefore, the executing and storing limitations are a mental process.
The claim recites five additional elements: receiving and retrieving limitations are recited amount to mere data gathering for use in the applying step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Further, the applying and implement steps as recited is nothing but data manipulation which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, applying step is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
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, the additional element of receiving, retrieving, applying, and implementing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, 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)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of policy and rule management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the plurality of rules associated with the plurality of policies are organized in a hierarchical classification and stored in the taxonomy-based datastore, wherein the plurality of rules are defined to be executed in a sequence, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of policy and rule management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the method further comprises:- recording, by the at least one parallel processor, an audit trail of the action; and- saving, by the at least one parallel processor, the audit trail in the taxonomy-based datastore, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of policy and rule management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein for recording the audit trail of the action,the method further comprises:- logging a set of entries, by the at least one processor, for execution of each rule of the plurality of rules, wherein each entry from the set of entries comprises metadata associated with the trigger event, wherein the metadata comprises at least a timestamp, a user identifier, and a rule version, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of policy and rule management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein prior to receiving the trigger event, the method comprises:- defining a plurality of rule attributes for the plurality of rules, wherein the plurality of rule attributes comprises at least one from among rule definition, rule unique identity, rule type, and rule status, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of policy and rule management. The claim recites the limitations of wherein for testing the plurality of rules, the method further comprises:- retrieving, by the at least one parallel processor, a rule test data associated with the plurality of rules for the plurality of policies from a plurality of sources;- evaluating, by the at least one parallel processor, the rule test data to generate rule testing result, wherein the rule testing result is generated by comparing the rule test data with a plurality of predefined conditions associated with the plurality of policies;- verifying, by the at least one parallel processor, whether the rule testing result meets the plurality of predefined conditions; and - adjusting, by the at least one parallel processor, the plurality of rules based on the rule testing result if the rule testing result fails to meet the plurality of predefined conditions, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of policy and rule management. The claim recites the limitations of , wherein the method further comprises:- validating, by the at least one parallel processor, the plurality of rules based on the rule testing result; and- updating, by the at least one processor, the rule status of each of the plurality of rules to one of an active status and an inactive status, wherein the active status indicates successful validation and the inactive status indicates unsuccessful validation, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 recites the same abstract idea of policy and rule management. The claim recites the limitations of , wherein the taxonomy-based datastore comprises a representational state transfer (REST) application programming interface (API) that runs a GraphQL data query language, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 10-11, 13-15, 17-20, 22-23 they have similar limitations as of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 21 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 21 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckee et al. (Pub. No. : US 20210051199 A1) in the view of Vaitheeswaran et al. (Pub. No. : US 20260072884 A1) and Smit et al. (Pub. No. : US 20190349426 A1)
As to claim 1 Mckee teaches a method for providing a more structured, efficient, and flexible framework for policy and rule management, the method comprising:
receiving using a policy and rule manager, a trigger event from a service for execution of the plurality of rules associated with a plurality of policies (paragraph [0046]: rigger events 10 are received from sensors 1 by a policy decision point (PDP) 2 for that management domain, and the event is used by the PDP to retrieve from the associated policy store 3 a list of any policies associated with that trigger event 10);
retrieving a set of rule details for the plurality of rules from a taxonomy-based datastore (paragraph [0046]: retrieve from the associated policy store 3 a list of any policies associated with that trigger event 10 (step 20).);
retrieving a dataset for applying the plurality of rules, from the taxonomy-based datastore (paragraph [0079] and fig. 5 step 30: identify and retrieve conditional elements);
applying the plurality of rules to the dataset to trigger execution of the plurality of rules (paragraph [0079]: It then implements the steps 551-556 specified by that policy (step 40) (i.e. applying). This includes the checking of conditional data (step 551) requiring);
executing the plurality of rules for performing an action (paragraph [0079]: It then implements (i.e. execute) the steps 551-556 specified by that policy (step 40). This includes the checking of conditional data (step 551) requiring); and
storing a result of the action in the taxonomy- based datastore (paragraph [0053]: output is sent to the policy author's policy store where it is used to change the quality value associated with that trigger/policy pairing).
Mckee does not explicitly disclose but Vaitheeswaran teaches classifying a plurality of rules based on a plurality of pre-defined rule-taxonomy categories (paragraphs [0046], [0190], [0128]: The multi-dimensional rule organizer 332 categorizes the rules 340 by attributes such as universal, country, client-specific, and type);
organizing the plurality of rules as classified in a hierarchical taxonomy structure within a taxonomy-based datastore (paragraphs [0046], [0190], [0128]: The multi-dimensional rule organizer 332 categorizes the rules 340 by attributes such as universal, country, client-specific, and type);
testing the plurality of rules as organized with the hierarchical taxonomy structure (paragraphs [0044], [0222]: The what-if analysis module 206 may provide an interactive sandbox environment to modify, create, bundle, and/or test changes to the rules and/or the application database schema 120);
validating the plurality of rules as organized with the hierarchical taxonomy structure in response to successful testing of the plurality of rules (paragraph [0128], [0178], [0222]: ensure that the 340 rules are properly organized and may be efficiently validated). It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mckee by adding above limitations as taught by Vaitheeswaran to provide reliable operation and faster execution (Vaitheeswaran, paragraph 0024).
Mckee and Vaitheeswaran do not explicitly disclose but Smith teaches using at least one parallel processor to perform parallel processing operations (paragraph [1627]-[1628]: One method enables an IoT network to function as a parallel processor by collaboratively processing data as the data is transmitted through the network) and implementing, in at least one from among a python language and a Java language, a rule executor that performs the validating and the executing of the plurality of rules (paragraph [1612], [0918], [2415]-[2420]: python-based data tool and performing a validation on the updated policy received in the update message). It whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mckee and Vaitheeswaran by adding above limitations as taught by Smith to improve the data integrity, quality assurance, and deliver a metric of data confidence (Smith, paragraph [0302]).
As to clam 2 Mckee together with Vaitheeswaran and Smith teaches a method according to claim 1. Mckee teaches wherein the plurality of rules are defined to be executed in a sequence (paragraphs [0022], [0045]).
As to clam 4 Mckee together with Vaitheeswaran and Smith teaches a method according to claim 1. Mckee teaches wherein the method further comprises:- recording, by the at least one parallel processor, an audit trail of the action; and- saving, by the at least one parallel processor, the audit trail in the taxonomy-based datastore (paragraph [0048]).
As to clam 5 Mckee together with Vaitheeswaran and Smith teaches a method according to claim 4. Mckee teaches wherein for recording the audit trail of the action,the method further comprises:- logging a set of entries, by the at least one parallel processor, for execution of each rule of the plurality of rules, wherein each entry from the set of entries comprises metadata associated with the trigger event, wherein the metadata comprises at least a timestamp, a user identifier, and a rule version (paragraph [0050]).
As to clam 6 Mckee together with Vaitheeswaran and Smith teaches a method according to claim 1. Mckee teaches wherein prior to receiving the trigger event, the method comprises:- defining a plurality of rule attributes for the plurality of rules, wherein the plurality of rule attributes comprises at least one from among rule definition, rule unique identity, rule type, and rule status (paragraph [0078]).
As to clam 8 Mckee together with Vaitheeswaran and Smith teaches a method according to claim 1. Vaitheeswaran teaches wherein for testing the plurality of rules, the method further comprises:- retrieving, by the at least one parallel processor, a rule test data associated with the plurality of rules for the plurality of policies from a plurality of sources;- evaluating, by the at least one parallel processor, the rule test data to generate rule testing result, wherein the rule testing result is generated by comparing the rule test data with a plurality of predefined conditions associated with the plurality of policies;- verifying, by the at least one parallel processor, whether the rule testing result meets the plurality of predefined conditions; and - adjusting, by the at least one parallel processor, the plurality of rules based on the rule testing result if the rule testing result fails to meet the plurality of predefined conditions (paragraph [0044], [0222]).
As to clam 9 Mckee together with Vaitheeswaran and Smith teaches a method according to claim 8. Vaitheeswaran teaches wherein the method further comprises:- updating, by the at least one parallel processor in response to validating, a rule status of each of the plurality of rules to one of an active status and an inactive status, wherein the active status indicates successful validation and the inactive status indicates unsuccessful validation (paragraphs [0139]-[0140]).
As to clam 21 Mckee together with Vaitheeswaran and Smith teaches a method according to claim 1. Smith teaches wherein the taxonomy-based datastore comprise a representational state transfer (REST) application programming interface (API) that runs a GraphQL data query language (paragraph [1532], [1633]).
As to claims 10-11, 13-15, 17-20, 22-23 they have similar limitations as of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 21 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 21 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights