DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged. The amendment includes the amending of claims 2-3, 8-10, and 16-17.
Double Patenting
3. The rejections raised in the Office Action mailed on 04/29/2026 have been overcome by applicant’s amendment received on 07/17/2026.
Claim Objections
4. The objection raised in the Office Action mailed on 04/29/2026 has been overcome by applicant’s amendment received on 07/17/2026.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computer assets” is grammatically incoherent and should be replaced with “wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computer asset”. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 3-8 are objected to for incorporating the deficiencies of independent claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The rejections raised in the Office Action mailed on 04/29/2026 have been overcome by applicant’s amendment received on 07/17/2026.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computer assets based on: a data center with which the given computing asset is associated” in Page 02. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “given computing asset” is claimed earlier in the claim (rather a “given computing assets” is claimed earlier in the claim). The examiner suggests that the applicants replace “wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computer assets based on: a data center with which the given computing asset is associated” with “wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computer asset based on: a data center with which the given computing asset is associated” to absolve this issue.
Dependent claims 3-8 are rejected to for incorporating the deficiencies of independent claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
In the instant case, claims (2-8), (9-15), and (16-21) are directed to a (method), (non-transitory, computer-readable medium), and (server system). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. The examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mental processes, specifically selecting data.
The examiner further notes that claims (2-8), (9-15), and (16-21) recite a (method), (non-transitory, computer-readable medium), and (server system) for selecting data which is similar to themes defined above of method of mental processes such as performing the selection of data, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in the 2019 PEG in grouping “c” in that the claims recite certain methods of mental processes such as performing the selection of data. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite a process of selecting data. The examiner notes that the claimed invention determines the selection of data. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps in selecting data, and the steps of the claims involve mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Claim 2:
A method, comprising: maintaining, by a server system, confidence index values corresponding to a set of computing assets that are available to the server system to provide a computing service over a network to remote client devices;
wherein a given confidence index value is indicative of readiness of a corresponding computing asset in providing the computing service;
wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computing assets based on: a data center with which the given computing asset is associated, the given computing asset being provisioned with an operating system and in service to an application or function in the data center, and the state of the computing asset indicating a warm cache;
receiving from a first client device a request for a computing resource associated with the computing service;
comparing a first confidence index value for a first computing asset of the set of computing assets to a second confidence index value for a second computing asset of the set of computing assets;
selecting, based on the first confidence index value being greater than the second confidence index value, data from the first computing asset; and
using, by the server system, the selected data to respond to the request.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically selecting data. Selecting data has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to selecting data. Moreover, the defining of confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the calculation of confidence values based on various features can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the comparison of confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the selection of data based on compared confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of selecting data, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as “server system”, “computing assets”, “network”, “remote client devices”, “data center”, “operating system”, “warm cache”, “first client device”, “first computing asset”, and “second computing asset” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of selecting data. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Moreover, the maintaining of confidence values is a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the receiving of a request is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the responding to the request via the use of selected data is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 2 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3-8 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the selecting data of the steps of claim 2 and do not amount to significantly more.
Specifically, claim 3 recites the increasing of a confidence value based on detected condition changes which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 4 recites the selection of data from higher confident asset which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 5 recites the calculation of a confidence value based on defined features which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 6 recites the defining of a confidence value to include multiple confidence values associated with different states which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites the calculation of a confidence value based on defined features which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 8 recites the calculation of a confidence value based on defined features which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a server system to perform operations comprising: maintaining confidence index values corresponding to a set of computing assets that are available to the server system to provide a computing service over a network to remote client devices;
wherein a given confidence index value is indicative of a readiness of a corresponding computing asset in providing the computing service;
wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computing asset based on: a first data center with which the given computing asset is associated, the given computing asset being provisioned with an operating system and in service to an application or function in the first data center, and the state of the computing asset indicating a warm cache;
comparing a first confidence index value for a first computing asset of the set of computing assets to a second confidence index value for a second computing asset of the set of computing assets;
selecting, for use in responding to a request from a first client device and based on the first confidence index value being greater than the second confidence index value, data from the first computing asset; and
using the selected data to respond to the request.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically selecting data. Selecting data has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to selecting data. Moreover, the defining of confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the calculation of confidence values based on various features can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the comparison of confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the selection of data based on compared confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of selecting data, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as “non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, “server system”, “computing assets”, “network”, “remote client devices”, “first data center”, “operating system”, “warm cache”, “first computing asset”, “second computing asset”, and “first client device” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of selecting data. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Moreover, the maintaining of confidence values is a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the responding to the request via the use of selected data is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 9 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 10-15 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the selecting data of the steps of claim 9 and do not amount to significantly more.
Specifically, claim 10 recites the increasing of a confidence value based on detected condition changes which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the selection of data from higher confident asset which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 12 recites the defining of confidence values which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 13 recites the calculation of a confidence value based on defined features which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 14 recites the calculation of a confidence value based on defined features which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the calculation of a confidence value based on defined features which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 16:
A server system, comprising: a set of computing assets that are available to support the server system in providing a computing service over a network to remote client devices;
wherein the set of computing assets is implemented in a cloud computing environment;
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the server system to: maintain confidence index values corresponding to the set of computing assets;
wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computing asset based on: a data center with which the given computing asset is associated, the given computing asset being provisioned with an operating system and in service to an application or function in the data center, and the state of the computing asset indicating a warm cache;
wherein the confidence index values are calculated for respective computing assets based on a data center with which a respective computing asset is associated;
receive from a first client device a request for a computing resource associated with the computing service;
select, based on the confidence index values, data from a computing asset within the set of computing assets having a confidence index value that is greater than the confidence index values of other computing assets within the set of computing assets; and
use the selected data to respond to the request.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically selecting data. Selecting data has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to selecting data. Moreover, the defining of confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the calculation of confidence values based on various features can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the comparison of confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the selection of data based on compared confidence values can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of selecting data, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as “server system”, “computing assets”, “network”, “remote client devices”, “cloud computing environment”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, “data center”, “operating system”, “warm cache”, “first client device”, “a computing asset”, and “other computing assets” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of selecting data. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Moreover, the maintaining of confidence values is a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the receiving of a request is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the responding to the request via the use of selected data is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 16 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 17-21 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the selecting data of the steps of claim 16 and do not amount to significantly more.
Specifically, claim 17 recites the defining of the confidence value and the increasing of a confidence value based on detected condition changes which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 18 recites the selection of data from higher confident asset which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 19 recites the calculation of a confidence value based on defined features which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 20 recites the calculation of a confidence value based on defined features which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 21 recites the defining of a confidence value to include multiple confidence values associated with different states which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on Page 10 that “Applicant notes that the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance sets out several "considerations" that are "indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application" such as "an improvement to other technology or technical field." Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, p. 55. Applicant submits that the claims are directed a technical solution to a technical problem which improves the operation of a network of cooperating computing assets by computing and applying confidence indexes that quantify reliability of assets and/or data fields, so the system can select, trust, de- emphasize, or disqualify data sources based on technical reliability rather than treating all returned data as equally reliable”. However, as explained above, the defining of confidence values, calculation of the confidence values based on various features, comparison of the confidence values, and selection of data based on the compared confidence values can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Improving a mental process is still a mental process. Moreover, the additional element of the maintaining of confidence values is a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional element of the receiving of a request is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the additional element of the responding to the request via the use of selected data is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Such additional elements are not an improvement to a computing technology, or any other technology.
Applicants argue on Pages 10-11 that “Applicant submits that the claims: Fall within a technical field: the claims provide improvements in data management, network routing efficiency, and infrastructure reliability within complex, distributed computer environments. Address a technical problem: standard architectures often lack a programmatic mechanism to quantitatively determine whether a remote asset actually exists, is in an expected operational state, or can be trusted to provide accurate data. Without this, systems have no history or technical reference to verify the credibility of a remote resource or the fields of a data structure. Said another way, traditional distributed Internet text retrieval systems suffer from inefficient server selection, unnecessary network traffic, and degraded performance when searching across multiple autonomous servers. Provide a technical solution: the claims generate and maintain a specific "confidence index value" calculated "based on a data center with which a respective computing asset is associated" to determine its actual network infrastructure "readiness." This is not generic data selection; it is a specific metric linked to real-time, physical infrastructure parameters. By explicitly comparing the generated confidence index values of competing computing resources (e.g., prioritizing an asset with an 80% index over a 50% index), the system dynamically routes traffic to the most structurally stable hardware. Specification at [0077] and [0079]-[0082]. Provide a technical benefit: the claims solve network latency, cloud optimization, and resource provisioning inefficiencies by dynamically linking tracking data to physical data center locations and asset operational limits. For example, claim 2 recites "maintaining, by a server system, confidence index values corresponding to a set of computing assets that are available to the server system to provide a computing service over a network to remote client devices, wherein a given confidence index value is indicative of readiness of a corresponding computing asset in providing the computing service, wherein a confidence index value is calculated for a given computing asset based on: a data center with which the given computing asset is associated, the given computing asset being provisioned with an operating system and in service to an application or function in the data center, and a state of the computing asset indicating a warm cache," "selecting, based on the first confidence index value being greater than the second confidence index value, data from the first computing asset," and "using, by the server system, the selected data to respond to the request"”. However, the purported improvements (such as data management, network routing efficiency, and infrastructure reliability, real-time infrastructure parameters to indicate readiness, and network latency, cloud optimization, and resource provisioning inefficiencies by dynamically linking tracking data to physical data center locations and asset operational limits) to a computing technology are not reflected in the claims. Rather, the limitations in the independent claims of the defining of confidence values, calculation of the confidence values based on various features, comparison of the confidence values, and selection of data based on the compared confidence values can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Improving a mental process is still a mental process. Moreover, the additional element of the maintaining of confidence values is a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional element of receiving of a request is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the additional element of the responding to the request via the use of selected data is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Such additional elements are not an improvement to a computing technology, or any other technology.
Applicants argue on Page 11 that “In new USPTO section 101 guidelines, PEG Example 37, claim 2 was found eligible because the tracking of memory allocation to determine icon usage is "not practically performed in the human mind”…Just as a human cannot "track memory allocation" in their mind, a human also cannot track data center resources, including tracking: whether a computing asset is associated with a given data center, whether a computing asset is provisioned with an operating system and is in service to an application or function in the data center, or a state of the computing asset indicating a warm cache. Said another way, the human mind cannot maintain operational readiness scores for a dynamic distributed cloud platform network serving remote client devices across multiple interconnected physical data centers”. However, unlike in example 37, the independent claims merely recite the maintaining of calculated confidence scores that are based on “a data center with which the given computing asset is associated, the given computing asset being provisioned with an operating system and in service to an application or function in the data center, and the state of the computing asset indicating a warm cache”. The calculation of confidence scores of assets based on its data center, its OS and use in that data center, and an indicative state of a warm cache can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper in contrast to the assertions of the applicants. Specifically, the calculation of confidence scores that are based off of various factors is a mere mathematical operation (which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper) in contrast to the specific tracking of memory allocation in example 37.
Applicants argue on Page 12 that “Applicant submits that amended claim 2 covers a technical solution that is "necessarily rooted in computer technology" and provides significantly more than an abstract idea and, as such, amounts to an inventive concept such that claim 2 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that independent claim 2 and all its dependent claims recite patent-eligible subject matter. Although not identical in scope, independent claims 9 and 16, and their respective dependent claims, are also believed to recite patent-eligible subject matter for at least similar reasons”. However, as explained above, the defining of confidence values, calculation of the confidence values based on various features, comparison of the confidence values, and selection of data based on the compared confidence values can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Improving a mental process is still a mental process. Moreover, the additional element of the maintaining of confidence values is a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional element of receiving of a request is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the additional element of the responding to the request via the use of selected data is a data output operation that is an insignificant data output operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Such additional elements are not an improvement to a computing technology, or any other technology.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 8,108,536 issued to Hernacki et al. on 31 January 2012. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 2-21 (e.g., methods to score asset trust).
U.S. PGPUB 2005/0228884 issued to Hawley on 13 October 2005. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 2-21 (e.g., methods to score asset trust).
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahesh Dwivedi whose telephone number is (571) 272-2731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:20 am – 4:40 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached (571) 272-4085. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mahesh Dwivedi
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2168
July 29, 2026
/MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights