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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
For claim 8, claim limitations “a data aggregation platform configured to store one or more databases;” and “a data flow user interface (UI) configured to provide an environment for a user” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For claim 10, claim limitation “a client device configured to access the data analysis platform over a network…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For claim 11, claim limitation “the data aggregation platform is configured to receive aggregated data from data sources…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims 12-16 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiencies of their respective base claims by dependency.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “A method, comprising:
providing, by a data integration plug-in for a data analysis platform, a user interface comprising a plurality of user input fields;
receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a respective plurality of user inputs corresponding to the plurality of user input fields;
generating, via the data integration plug-in, a query in a database query language based on the user inputs;
receiving, via the data integration plug-in, input data from a data aggregation platform in response to the query; and
importing, via the data integration plug-in, the input data to the data analysis platform.”
(Step 1) The claim recites “A method comprising:
providing…receiving…generating…receiving…importing…” as drafted, is a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “generating, via the data integration plug-in, a query in a database query language based on the user inputs” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the data integration plug-in,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the data integration plug-in” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually “generating a query in a database query language based on the user inputs” in his mind.
If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “data integration plug-in” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “providing, by a data integration plug-in for a data analysis platform, a user interface comprising a plurality of user input fields;”
“receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a respective plurality of user inputs corresponding to the plurality of user input fields;” “receiving, via the data integration plug-in, input data from a data aggregation platform in response to the query;” and “importing, via the data integration plug-in, the input data to the data analysis platform.” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…providing, by a data integration plug-in for a data analysis platform, a user interface comprising a plurality of user input fields;” “receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a respective plurality of user inputs corresponding to the plurality of user input fields;” “receiving, via the data integration plug-in, input data from a data aggregation platform in response to the query;” and “importing, via the data integration plug-in, the input data to the data analysis platform,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data integration plug-in” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “providing,” “receiving,” “receiving” and “importing” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “providing,” “receiving,” “receiving” and “importing” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “providing,” “receiving,” “receiving” and “importing” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a request to write output data to the data aggregation platform;
providing, via the data integration plug-in, the user interface comprising a plurality of additional user input fields;
receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a respective plurality of additional user inputs corresponding to the additional user input fields;
generating, via the data integration plug-in, instructions in the database query language based on the additional user inputs to write the output data to the data aggregation platform.”
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “generating, via the data integration plug-in, instructions in the database query language based on the additional user inputs to write the output data to the data aggregation platform” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the data integration plug-in,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the data integration plug-in” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually “generating instructions in the database query language based on the additional user inputs to write the output data to the data aggregation platform” in his mind.
If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “data integration plug-in” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a request to write output data to the data aggregation platform;”
“providing, via the data integration plug-in, the user interface comprising a plurality of additional user input fields;”
“receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a respective plurality of additional user inputs corresponding to the additional user input fields.” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a request to write output data to the data aggregation platform;
providing, via the data integration plug-in, the user interface comprising a plurality of additional user input fields;
receiving, via the data integration plug-in, a respective plurality of additional user inputs corresponding to the additional user input fields,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data integration plug-in” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “receiving,” “providing” and “receiving” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving,” “providing” and “receiving” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “receiving,” “providing” and “receiving” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “The method of claim 2, wherein the additional user inputs comprise a write location for the output data in the data aggregation platform” which is merely data (e.g. contents) and does not meet any of the categories (MPEP: 2106.03, “Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product).”).
For the above reason, the limitation does not change the result of the analysis from the independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the user inputs are indicative of query parameters defining the query.” (MPEP: 2106.03, “Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product).”).
For the above reason, the limitation does not change the result of the analysis from the independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 4, wherein the user inputs comprise a location of target data in the data aggregation platform.” (MPEP: 2106.03, “Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product).”).
For the above reason, the limitation does not change the result of the analysis from the independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the user inputs comprise a selection of one or more time ranges, the query is configured to request time series data points corresponding to the one or more time ranges, and the input data comprises the requested time series data points.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements – “request time series data points corresponding to the one or more time ranges, and the input data comprises the requested time series data points;” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.” and “iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial,”
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitation “request” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “request” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.”
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “The method of claim 1, comprising providing the input data to a data flow, wherein the data flow is configured to use the input data as to input to a machine learning model.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements – “providing;” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.” and “iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial,”
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitation “provide” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “provide” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.”
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “A computing system, comprising:
a data aggregation platform configured to store one or more databases;
a data analysis platform, comprising:
a data flow user interface (UI) configured to provide an environment for a user to configure a data flow; and
a data integration plug-in comprising a first function that, when executed, is configured to cause the data integration plug-in to:
receive a plurality of user inputs indicative of query parameters;
transform the user inputs into a query interpretable by the data aggregation platform; and
execute the query to retrieve an input dataset from the data aggregation platform.”
(Step 1) The claim recites “A computing system, comprising:
…store…provide…receive…transform…execute…” as drafted, is a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “transform the user inputs into a query interpretable by the data aggregation platform” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “transform” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually transform the user inputs into a query interpretable by the data aggregation platform” in his mind.
If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “data aggregation platform,” “data analysis platform,” “data flow user interface,” “data integration plug-in” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “a data aggregation platform configured to store one or more databases;”
“a data flow user interface (UI) configured to provide an environment for a user to configure a data flow;” and
“receive a plurality of user inputs indicative of query parameters;”
“execute the query to retrieve an input dataset from the data aggregation platform.” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…a data aggregation platform configured to store one or more databases;” “a data flow user interface (UI) configured to provide an environment for a user to configure a data flow;” and “receive a plurality of user inputs indicative of query parameters;” “execute the query to retrieve an input dataset from the data aggregation platform,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data aggregation platform,” “data analysis platform,” “data flow user interface,” “data integration plug-in” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “store,” “provide,” “receive,” “transform” and “Execute” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “store,” “provide,” “receive,” “transform” and “Execute” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “store,” “provide,” “receive,” “transform” and “Execute” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “The computing system of claim 8, wherein the data flow comprises ingestion of the input dataset to a machine learning model.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “machine learning model” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “ingestion of the input dataset to a machine learning model.” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…ingestion of the input dataset to a machine learning model,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “machine learning model” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “ingestion” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “ingestion” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “ingestion” step is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “The computing system of claim 8, wherein the data analysis platform is hosted on a server, and the computing system comprises a client device configured to access the data analysis platform over a network.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “server,” “computing system,” and “client device” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “access the data analysis platform over a network.” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…access the data analysis platform over a network,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(1), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it…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);”.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “server,” “computing system,” and “client device” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “access” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “access” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…access the data analysis platform over a network,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(1), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it…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);”.
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “The computing system of claim 8, wherein the data aggregation platform is configured to receive aggregated data from data sources comprising at least one sensor.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “the data aggregation platform” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “receive aggregated data from data sources comprising at least one sensor.” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…receive aggregated data from data sources comprising at least one sensor,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data aggregation platform” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “receive” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receive” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “receive” step is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “The computing system of claim 8, wherein the data integration plug-in comprises a second function that, when executed, is configured to cause the data integration plug-in to:
receive the query from the user in a database query language; and
execute the query to retrieve the input dataset from the data aggregation platform, wherein the input dataset is pre-processed based on the query.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “data integration plug-in” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “receive the query from the user in a database query language;” and “execute the query to retrieve the input dataset from the data aggregation platform, wherein the input dataset is pre-processed based on the query;” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…receive the query from the user in a database query language;” and “execute the query to retrieve the input dataset from the data aggregation platform, wherein the input dataset is pre-processed based on the query,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data integration plug-in” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “receive” and “retrieve” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receive” and “retrieve” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “receive” and “retrieve” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “The computing system of claim 12, wherein the data integration plug-in comprises a third function that, when executed, is configured to:
receive the query from the user in a database query language; and
execute the query to retrieve the input dataset from the data aggregation platform, wherein the input dataset is not pre-processed based on the query.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “data integration plug-in” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “receive the query from the user in a database query language;” and “execute the query to retrieve the input dataset from the data aggregation platform, wherein the input dataset is not pre-processed based on the query;” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…receive the query from the user in a database query language;” and “execute the query to retrieve the input dataset from the data aggregation platform, wherein the input dataset is not pre-processed based on the query,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data integration plug-in” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “receive” and “retrieve” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receive” and “retrieve” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “receive” and “retrieve” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites “The computing system of claim 13, wherein the data analysis platform is configured to analyze the input dataset via the data flow and generate an output dataset via the data flow.”
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “analyze the input dataset via the data flow and generate an output dataset via the data flow” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “data analysis platform,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “data analysis platform” language, “analyze” and “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually “analyze the input dataset via the data flow and generate an output dataset via the data flow” in his mind.
If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis
Claim 15 recites “The computing system of claim 14, wherein the data integration plug-in comprises a fourth function that, when executed, is configured to cause the data integration plug-in to:
receive a plurality of additional user inputs;
transform the additional user inputs into an instruction in the data query language; and
execute the instruction to write the output dataset to a location in the data aggregation platform based on the additional user inputs.
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “transform the additional user inputs into an instruction in the data query language” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the data integration plug-in,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the data integration plug-in” language, “transform” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually “transform the additional user inputs into an instruction in the data query language” in his mind.
If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “data integration plug-in” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “receive a plurality of additional user inputs;” and “execute the instruction to write the output dataset to a location in the data aggregation platform based on the additional user inputs.” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…receive a plurality of additional user inputs;” and “execute the instruction to write the output dataset to a location in the data aggregation platform based on the additional user inputs” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data integration plug-in” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “receive” and “write” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receive” and “write” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “receive” and “write” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites “The computing system of claim 15, wherein the data flow comprises a call to execute at least one of the first function, the second function, the third function, and the fourth function.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements – “…a call to execute at least one of the first function, the second function, the third function, and the fourth function,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(1), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it…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);”.
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites additional elements – “…a call to execute at least one of the first function, the second function, the third function, and the fourth function,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(1), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it…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);”.
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites, “The computing system of claim 8, wherein the data flow UI comprises a workspace and graphical elements configured to be drag-and-dropped in the workspace, wherein an arrangement of the graphical elements represents the data flow.”
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “data flow UI” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “represents the data flow” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…represents the data flow,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data flow UI” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “represents the data flow” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “represents the data flow” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “represents the data flow” step is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites “The computing system of claim 8, wherein the user inputs comprise a selection of one or more time ranges, the query is configured to request time series data points corresponding to the one or more time ranges, and the input dataset comprises the requested time series data points.” which is merely data (e.g. contents) and does not meet any of the categories (MPEP: 2106.03, “Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product).”).
For the above reason, the limitation does not change the result of the analysis from the independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 recites “A method, comprising:
providing, via a data analysis platform, a data flow user interface (UI) for configuring a data flow in a computing system;
ingesting, by the data analysis platform, input data from a data aggregation platform via a data integration plug-in of the data analysis platform;
integrating, via the data analysis platform, the input data into the data flow;
generating, via the data analysis platform, output data based on the input data via the data flow; and
writing, via the data analysis platform, the output data to the data aggregation platform using an instruction generated by the data integration plug-in.”
(Step 1) The claim recites “A method comprising:
providing … ingesting … integrating … generating … writing…” as drafted, is a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “generating, via the data analysis platform, output data based on the input data via the data flow” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the data analysis platform,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the data analysis platform” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually “generating output data based on the input data via the data flow” in his mind.
If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “the data analysis platform” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements – “providing, via a data analysis platform, a data flow user interface (UI) for configuring a data flow in a computing system;” “ingesting, by the data analysis platform, input data from a data aggregation platform via a data integration plug-in of the data analysis platform;” “integrating, via the data analysis platform, the input data into the data flow;” and “writing, via the data analysis platform, the output data to the data aggregation platform using an instruction generated by the data integration plug-in.” which are Mere Data Gathering and Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies,” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc…,” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial…” and “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.”
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…providing, via a data analysis platform, a data flow user interface (UI) for configuring a data flow in a computing system;” “ingesting, by the data analysis platform, input data from a data aggregation platform via a data integration plug-in of the data analysis platform;” “integrating, via the data analysis platform, the input data into the data flow;” and “writing, via the data analysis platform, the output data to the data aggregation platform using an instruction generated by the data integration plug-in.,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing storage data retrieval process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “data analysis platform” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations “providing,” “ingesting,” “integrating” “generating” and “writing” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “providing,” “ingesting,” “integrating” “generating” and “writing” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…,” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)…,” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,” “i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc…” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs.,”
The other additional elements, “providing,” “ingesting,” “integrating” “generating” and “writing” steps are Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and transmitting data in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites “The method of claim 19, wherein generating the output data comprises executing a machine learning model to predict the output data based on the input data.
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “predict the output data based on the input data” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “machine learning model,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “machine learning model” language, “predict” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually “predict the output data based on the input data” in his mind.
If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – using “machine learning model” in the step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B) 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 elements of using “machine learning model” to perform the step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boven et al., (U.S. Pub. No.: 20210034581), paragraph [0040], “Accordingly, in one aspect, disclosed herein is a method that involves (a) receiving a first user input specifying connection information that facilitates connection to a data source, (b) establishing, based on the connection information, a connection to the data source and ingesting from the data source asset-related data, (c) storing the ingested asset-related data in a first data store location, (d) receiving a second user input specifying pipeline configuration data that indicates one or more transformations to apply to portions of the ingested asset-related data, (e) deploying, based on the pipeline configuration data, at least one pipeline that operates to (i) retrieve from the first data store location a portion of the asset-related data, (ii) apply to the portion of the asset-related data the one or more transformations, thereby resulting in transformed asset-related data, and (iii) store the transformed asset-related data in a second data store location, (f) receiving a third user input specifying a set of data science model configuration parameters, the parameters including (i) an indication of a type of data science model to be created, (ii) an indication of a set of asset-related data to use as training data for the data science model to be created, and (iii) an indication of a portion of the transformed asset-related data stored in the second data store to use as inputs for the data science model to be created, (g) based on the data science model configuration parameters, applying a set of machine learning techniques to create a new data science model, (h) receiving a fourth user input specifying application configuration parameters that define one or more ways to visually render asset-related data, (i) executing the created data science model by using the indicated portion of the transformed asset-related data stored in the second data store as inputs to the data science model, and (j) causing at least of portion of an output of the data science model to be rendered according to the application configuration parameters.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/YU ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights