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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Although each claim nominally falls within at least one of the four eligible categories under step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which is a judicial exception to the four categories) without significantly more.
First, with respect to prong one of step 2A of the analysis, each of independent claims 1 and 11 is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing transaction data in order to generate a report. Claim 1 will be treated as representative. The idea is recited in the following aspects of claim 1 (and in the corresponding aspects of the other independent claims):
deriving location data associated with the plurality of applications, the location data comprising public cloud provider identifiers, private data center hosting descriptors, cloud region identifiers, city information, and country code information associated with app connectors that provide access to the plurality of applications;
analyzing the location data to determine, for each application site, current hosting platform and region, and to correlate application access paths with geo-location attributes; and
generating a report detailing application locations for the enterprise, the report including location-aware outputs that identify, per site, the applications hosted and their associated public cloud or private data center, region, city, and country.
The idea amounts to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind or with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the generic computer components, the claimed process encompasses a human reviewing transaction log data, analyzing it, and generating a written report showing application locations. If a claim, 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. Accordingly, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to prong two of step 2A, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in each of the independent claims. In particular, besides the abstract idea itself, each claim recites generic computer functionality at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Simply invoking general-purpose computers or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer, is not enough to transform the claims into a patent-eligible application, and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, to the extent that the claims require such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Still further, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As specific examples, the claims recite the following elements which are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
a non-transitory storage medium, which amounts to invoking general-purpose computers or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea;
obtaining transactional data for a plurality of users of an enterprise, wherein the transactional data relates to usage of a plurality of applications by the plurality of users, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering; and
mentions of hosting, cloud providers, applications, data centers, etc., which amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
In light of the above, the claimed invention clearly does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field. Rather than presenting a technological solution to a technological problem, each claim represents merely an abstract idea with instructions to apply the abstract idea using computers. Therefore, the claims clearly cannot be said to represent a technological improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the claims recite an abstract idea but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to step 2B, each of the independent claims 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 amount to mere instructions to apply the idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, or mere field-of-use limitations. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and mere field-of-use limitations cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, as discussed above, to the extent that the claims recite or imply features such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot amount to significantly more to the abstract idea. Finally, upon reevaluating the elements previously determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, they cannot be considered unconventional. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, each of the claims as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons given above, each of the independent claims is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under the same rationale as given above. Each of these claims include further details of the abstract idea, making it more specific, but no less abstract. Any additionally recited limitations which are not directed to the abstract idea itself do not include limitations which amount to a practical application of, or significantly more than, the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “generating a report detailing application locations for the enterprise, the report including location-aware outputs that identify, per site, the applications hosted and their associated public cloud or private data center, region, city, and country.” This limitation is ambiguous because it is not clear whether it requires the report to include one of (1) “the applications hosted and their associated public cloud” or (2) “private data center, region, city, and country”, or whether it requires the report to include (1) “the applications hosted and their associated public cloud or private data center” and (2) their “region, city, and country”. For the purposes of this action, the claim will be interpreted as requiring the report to include (1) “the applications hosted and their associated public cloud or private data center” and (2) their “region, city, and country”. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as follows:
generating a report detailing application locations for the enterprise, the report including location-aware outputs that identify, per site, the applications hosted, [[and]] their associated public cloud or private data center, and their region, city, and country.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of a parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed in each of the independent claims. For example, although US Pub. No. 2023/0300187 to Ellappan describes mapping a cloud environment (see, e.g., [0021]), Ellappan, either alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or suggest a detailed combination of features including “obtaining transactional data for a plurality of users of an enterprise, wherein the transactional data relates to usage of a plurality of applications by the plurality of users; deriving location data associated with the plurality of applications, the location data comprising public cloud provider identifiers, private data center hosting descriptors, cloud region identifiers, city information, and country code information associated with app connectors that provide access to the plurality of applications; analyzing the location data to determine, for each application site, current hosting platform and region, and to correlate application access paths with geo-location attributes; and generating a report detailing application locations for the enterprise, the report including location-aware outputs that identify, per site, the applications hosted, [[and]] their associated public cloud or private data center, and their region, city, and country.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights