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 is a FINAL office action.
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. Claims 1-10 all fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1 emphasized below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1: Providing a process graph representing process data wherein the process data is:
PNG
media_image1.png
529
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
366
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
-discovering the process graph from the entity-centric model…
-enable an interactive visual process analysis of the entity-centric data model…
The above claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite processing information to modeling business processes and managing business information. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, the underlined claim limitations recite “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. The limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea as they can be accomplished by including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion based on visualizing a business process as a graph or chart with the aid of pen/paper.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claim 1 includes the following additional elements:
A computer-implemented method,
…extracting by at least one computer processor
…from at least one external computer system;
An interface; data structure; a first graphical interface;
…display device
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims 2-10, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Furthermore dependent claims 2-10 comprise the following additional elements: a gateway, second graphical user interface; a display.
These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-10 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments & Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been considered however, they are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant argues: “The Specification underscores that real-world IT architectures are flooded with an overwhelming variety of parallel object logs. Page 1, Lines 27-28 of the Description states: "However, typical processes in the real-world comprise multiple process steps that operate on multiple objects, such as an order, an invoice, a shipment, a hiring...". A human mind cannot as a practical matter, track, structure, or logically interlink hundreds of concurrent event instances mapped across heterogenous entity types extracted from an external system in real-time. As such, applicant submits that the claims are not abstract.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s assertion does not provide sufficient argument or evidence that the claimed limitation allegedly cannot be practically performed in the human mind, with pen and paper. In other words, Applicant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s rejection, which focuses on the abstract idea being implemented with generic computer processing additional elements recited in claim 1. Any specific improvement being argued is merely an improvement to the abstract idea, and is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application. The additional elements/limitations (i.e., additional to the recitation of the abstract idea itself) “do not recite any improvement to the basic function of a computer but instead merely use a generic computer provide a process graph representation process information. Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome and/or merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process: i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); ii. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network without any details of how the delivery is accomplished, Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262-63, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) were all ruled to be abstract ideas. Therefore the Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Relevant Prior Art
Prior art listed below is pertinent and relevant to the claimed invention. The prior art does not appear to anticipate nor render obvious the combination of limitations claimed in this application for the independent claims of this application, as a whole.
US 20210201168 discloses a method and apparatus for outputting information, a device and a storage medium are provided. An implementation of the method may include: acquiring knowledge data from at least one data source; acquiring information related to at least one user and a preset entity set; determining an entity, metadata of the entity and a relationship between entities, based on the related information, the knowledge data and the preset entity set; creating a knowledge graph based on the entity, the metadata and the relationship; and outputting the knowledge graph.
US 20220004561 discloses a method of interactive visual analysis is performed at a computer. The computer generates a data visualization by executing a data visualization data flow graph comprising a directed graph having a plurality of nodes. Each of the nodes specifies either a data retrieval operation or a data transformation operation and the data visualization comprises visual marks having a first set of characteristics, including a first mark type and one or more first visual mark encodings. A user specifies a second mark type and/or one or more second visual mark encodings. In response, the computer updates a portion, less than all, of the data flow graph according to the second mark type and/or the one or more second visual mark encodings, and generates an updated data visualization by executing updated nodes of the data flow graph without executing nodes not updated according to the user input.
US 20130159035 discloses a business process master data vector for a business process of an organization can include master data coordinates corresponding to a plurality of business object node fields of a plurality of business objects involved in the business process. Values of the master data coordinates can indicate whether a corresponding business object node field is mandatory for successful execution of the business process. Master data instance vectors corresponding to the plurality of business objects can be evaluated such that a master data instance vector includes instance coordinates indicating whether a corresponding business object node field contains a master data value. The business process can be analyzed using the business process master data vector and/or the master data instance vectors.
However, none of the prior art does appears to anticipate or render obvious the combination of limitations claimed in this application for the independent claim of this application, as a whole.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights