Accenture Global Solutions Limited - [2022] APO 18

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Accenture Global Solutions Limited [2022] APO 18

Patent Application: 2019203758

Title:AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF A SET OF SYSTEMS USED TO IMPLEMENT A PROCESS

Patent Applicant: Accenture Global Solutions Limited

Delegate: Dr W.E. Guinea

Decision Date: 24 March 2022

Hearing Date: Written submissions filed 23 February 2022

Catchwords: PATENTS – standard patent – Examiner objections – manner of manufacture – substance of the invention resides in a scheme for error analysis and the facilitation of fixing errors – all claims lack a manner of manufacture – no patentable subject matter in application – application refused.

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Murray Trento & Associates Pty Ltd

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2019203758

Title:AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF A SET OF SYSTEMS USED TO IMPLEMENT A PROCESS

Patent Applicant: Accenture Global Solutions Limited

Date of Decision: 24 March 2022

DECISION

None of the claims are for a manner of manufacture. There is no material within the application that would lead to a manner of manufacture if made the subject of a claim. The application is refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Patent application 2019203758 (the “application”) was filed on 29 May 2019 in the name of Accenture Global Solutions Limited (the “Applicant”). By virtue of its divisional status to 2018200748, the application has an earliest priority date of 22 February 2017.
Examination of the application was requested on 31 July 2019. The first of four adverse examination reports issued on 27 July 2020, with the second examination report issuing on 25 August 2020, the third examination report issuing on 19 March 2021, and the fourth report issuing on 30 June 2021. All these reports objected to the claims as not being for a manner of manufacture, and this remains the only objection outstanding on the application.
On 22 July 2021, the Applicant wrote to the Commissioner requesting to be heard in relation to the outstanding objection. On 20 January 2022, the Commissioner wrote to the Applicant, advising them that the hearing would be by way of written submissions due to be filed five weeks from that date. The Applicant filed their submissions in this regard on 23 February 2022 (the “submissions”).

The Invention as Described

The application deals with what may be broadly understood as methods of undertaking system/error analysis in computer based systems used to carry out a process. This, however, is not immediately apparent on reading paragraph [0002], which comprises the entirety of the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION”, and is as follows:
“A process may include a set of interrelated activities that interact to achieve a result. For example, a process may relate to enrollment (sic) of a consumer in a health insurance plan and reimbursement of a broker who helped the consumer to enroll (sic) in the health insurance plan. A result of the process may be affected by a structure and/or organization of the process. For example, a process to enroll (sic) a consumer in a health insurance plan may include interaction with various web-based systems associated with an organization providing the health insurance plan. In this example, data, related to the interactions of the consumer and/or the broker with the various systems, may be collected.”
Paragraph [0002] simply suggests, unsurprisingly, that a result of a process may be affected by the “…structure and/or organisation of the process”. The specific issues that the specification would seem to address become more apparent when one considers paragraphs [0011] to [0013] of the “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENT(S) OF THE INVENTION:
“[0011] An organization may implement various processes to conduct operations of the organization. The organization may use various computer-based systems to implement the various processes. In some cases, the systems may have been developed and/or tested independently. In addition, there may be a lack of controls between the systems. This can result in data loss, data leakage, system errors, data corruption, data incompatibilities, reduced accuracy of system output, and/or the like during implementation of the various processes.
[0012] Implementations described herein enable a systems analysis platform to generate a system topology of systems used to implement a process. Furthermore, implementations described herein enable a systems analysis platform to identify sources of data loss, data leakage, or other issues that have occurred, or might occur, during implementation of the process. Furthermore, implementations described herein enable a systems analysis platform to generate predictions or recommendations and/or perform other actions to improve the process.
[0013] In this way, the systems analysis platform increases an efficiency of analyzing a process of an organization, thereby conserving processing resources via quick and efficient analysis of systems used to implement the process. In addition, in this way, the systems analysis platform improves accuracy of a result/output of a process, thereby conserving processing resources that would be consumed due to inaccurate results/outputs. Furthermore, in this way, the systems analysis platform improves data communicated between systems used to implement a process, thereby conserving processing resources that would otherwise be consumed as a result of damaged, corrupted, or incorrect data.”
That is, the invention appears to be directed to providing methods of undertaking system/error analysis in computer-based systems used to carry out a process, particularly in the context of where different systems may have been developed independently to perform part of a process. The precise nature of the invention as described is perhaps best understood by reference to figures 1A to 4, which are reproduced below where appropriate.
Figures 1A to 1C, reproduced below, illustrate an example implementation 100, by reference “…to examining systems that implement a process to enroll (sic) consumers in a health insurance plan and reimburse a broker that assisted with the enrolment” (at [0014]). The systems involved in the process are exemplified and set forth on the right-hand side of figures 1A to 1C, and are discussed as follows at [0014]:
“For example, the examined systems may implement the process utilizing an intake system used to receive consumer information during the enrolment (sic) process, a member system used to store/manage the consumer’s information after enrollment (sic), a broker system used to store data related to licensed brokers that work with an insurance company providing the health insurance plan, and a broker payment system used to determine and/or administer broker reimbursement payments for each consumer enrollment (sic).”
A systems analysis platform 110 may receive data directly (hereinafter “direct data”) from each of the “intake system”, the “member system”, the “broker system” and the “broker payment system”. Such data may include the number and type of the systems concerned and the way they are interconnected. The systems analysis platform 110 may also receive external data 120 about or associated with the systems. Such data can include interviews from people interacting with the systems and system documentation, such as, for example, related to the implementation of the systems, data validation/formatting relating to the systems or user documentation regarding the systems.
As best understood, and with reference to figure 1B, the system analysis platform 110 may process the external data 120 and/or the direct data to “…generate a system topology and identify a set of control points for the set of systems” (at [0016]). Generating the system topology 140 may include identifying each of the intake, the member, the broker and the broker payment systems, and the way in which they are interconnected. It may also show points where the systems or a “corresponding process” receives input, generates output or one more nodes, 1 to Q, associated with the systems or a corresponding process. As stated at [0017]:
“The nodes shown by the system topology may represent systems of the set of systems, steps of a process that the set of systems implements, and/or a set of control points that the set of systems identified.”

10. The nature of “control points” appears rather vague, however, based on the discussion at [0016] and [0020] can simply be “…points within or between the set of systems where the set of systems receive data, where the received data needs to be in a particular format, is to be validated, and/or the like” (at [0016]). A similar discussion appears at [0085] in connection with figure 4, although there a control point may also be a point in a system topology or a step in a process. Example control points 150 that may be identified by the systems analysis platform 110 include (at [0020]):

“…where data is received by the intake system (e.g., via a user interface associated with the intake system), where data from the intake system is validated against a broker system (e.g., using a data structure associated with the broker system), where data is provided from the intake system to the broker payment system, and/or the like.”

That is, the control points appear to relate to points where data is exchanged between or within the systems, a point in a system topology or a step in the process.

11. The system analysis platform 110 may identify the control points using a variety of means, including “black box testing” or analysis. An “adaptive model” could also be used to optimise the location or number of control points, as discussed at [0019]:

“For example, the systems analysis platform may identify a quantity of control points, and/or location of the control points, needed to satisfy a threshold metric, performance indicator, and/or the like. Continuing with the previous example, the systems analysis platform may remove identified control points, and/or modify the location of the identified control points, in a progressive manner until the performance/operation of the set of systems fails to satisfy a threshold metric, performance indicator, and/or the like. In this way, the systems analysis platform may optimize a quantity, and/or location, of control points for a set of systems.”

12. The system analysis platform may also identify values 160 for a set of metrics 170 related to the set of systems. The metrics 170 may include, for example, metrics regarding the performance of the set of systems, such as the data loss, processing time and error rate of the set of systems.

13. Figure 1C illustrates that the systems analysis platform 110 may “identify an error related to the set of control points and/or the set of metrics” 180, and then potentially “perform an action to facilitate fixing of the error” 190. The error 180 is discussed at [0022] as follows:

“For example, the systems analysis platform may identify a missing control point (e.g., based on documentation data, data related to another set of systems, etc.), such as a lack of validation of formatting of data provided from one system to another system. As another example, the systems analysis platform may identify a value of a metric that satisfies a first threshold value rather than a second threshold value, or does not satisfy a third threshold value.”

Similarly, performing an action to facilitate fixing the error 190 is described at [0023]:

“For example, the systems analysis platform may generate a recommendation to implement validation of formatting between systems. As another example, the systems analysis platform may generate a report that identifies sources of data loss and/or data leakage as data is exchanged among the set of systems.”

14. Figure 2, reproduced below, provides an example environment 200 in which the invention may implemented. As discussed at [0026], example environment 200

“…may include a client device 210, an external information source 220, a systems analysis platform 230, a cloud computing environment 232, a set of computing resources 234 (hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘computing resources 234’ and individually as ‘computing resource 234’), and a network 240. Devices of environment 200 may interconnect via wired connections, wireless connections, or a combination of wired and wireless connections.” (emphasis added)

15. Systems analysis platform 230 performs functions similarly as described for system analysis platform 110. This is hosted by cloud computing environment 232, which itself comprises computing resources 234. Computing resources 234 are said to include “…one or more personal computers, workstation computers, server devices, or other types of computation and/or communication devices” (at [0030]) and “…may include a group of cloud resources, such as one or more applications (‘APPs’) 234-1, one or more virtual machines (‘VMs’) 234-2, one or more virtualized storages (‘VSs’) 234-3, or one or more hypervisors (‘HYPs’) 234-4 (at [0031], emphasis added). As I understand it from [0029], [0030] and [0032] to [0035], the cloud computing environment 232 provides cloud computing services to/for the systems analysis platform 230 using computing resources 234 in ways that are well known in the art.

16. As indicated at [0036], the network 240 includes virtually any type of network as well known in the art:

“For example, network 240 may include a cellular network (e.g., a long-term evolution (LTE) network, a code division multiple access (CDMA) network, a 3G network, a 4G network, a 5G network, another type of advanced generation network, etc.), a public land mobile network (PLMN), a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network MAN), a telephone network (e.g., the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)), a private network, an ad hoc network, an intranet, the Internet, a fiber optic-based network, a cloud computing network, or the like, and/or a combination of these or other types of networks.”

17. Paragraph [0037] makes it clear that the environment 200 is merely exemplary, and the invention may be implemented in any one of a plethora of environments within the bounds of what is well known in the art:

“The number and arrangement of devices and networks shown in Fig. 2 are provided as an example. In practice, there may be additional devices and/or networks, fewer devices and/or networks, different devices and/or networks, or differently arranged devices and/or networks than those shown in Fig. 2. Furthermore, two or more devices shown in Fig. 2 may be within a single device, or a single device shown in Fig. 2 may be implemented as multiple, distributed devices. Additionally, or alternatively, a set of devices (e.g., one or more devices) of environment 200 may perform one or more functions described as being performed by another set of devices of environment 200.”

18. As apparent from paragraph [0038], figure 3, reproduced below, provides an exemplary component diagram of computing devices within the environment 200, such as the client device 210, external information source 220, systems analysis platform 230 and computing resource 234. As further noted at [0038]:

“In some implementations, client device 210, external information source 220, systems analysis platform 230, and/or computing resource 234 may include one or more devices 300 and/or one or more components of device 300. As shown in Fig. 3, device 300 may include a bus 310, a processor 320, a memory 330, a storage component 340, an input component 350, an output component 360, and a communication interface 370.”

It is quite clear from figure 3, and the discussion thereof at [0038], that figure 3 simply represents a block diagram of generalised system componentry for any type of computing device as well known in the art. Similarly, the discussion of each of those components, at [0039] to [0044] indicates that these are implemented within the bounds of what was well known in the art as at the priority date.

19. In addition, the arrangement provided in figure 3 is merely exemplary, and quite clearly any implementation of such componentry as known in the art is contemplated:

“[0045] The number and arrangement of components shown in Fig. 3 are provided as an example. In practice, device 300 may include additional components, fewer components, different components, or differently arranged components than those shown in Fig. 3. Additionally, or alternatively, a set of components (e.g., one or more components) of device 300 may perform one or more functions described as being performed by another set of components of device 300.”

20. Figure 4, reproduced below, provides an example implementation flow chart of the invention as described:

“[0046] Fig. 4 is a flow chart of an example process 400 for automatic analysis of a set of systems used to implement a process. In some implementations, one or more process blocks of Fig. 4 may be performed by systems analysis platform 230. In some implementations, one or more process blocks of Fig. 4 may be performed by another device or a group of devices separate from or including systems analysis platform 230, such as client device 210 and external information source 220.”

21. The steps in the example process 400 are given as: “receive first data associated with a set of systems used to implement a process” 410; “determine a system topology for the set of systems using the first data” 420; “identify a set of control points, associated with the set of systems, where second data is received and/or provided by the set of systems” 430; “identify a set of values for a set of metrics related to the set of systems” 440; “identify an error related to the set of control points and/or the set of metrics based on identifying the set of control points and/or the set of values for the set of metrics” 450; and “perform an action to facilitate fixing of the error based on identifying the error” 460.

22. The steps outlined in figure 4 are commensurate with the nature of the invention as outlined with regard to figures 1A to 1C and 2. This is perhaps apparent from [0046], but in addition, each of the steps in figure 4 is also discussed, at [0047] to [00138], by reference to items from figure 2, as well as using the example of insurance plan enrolment and broker reimbursement and referring to the systems for this as indicated on figures 1A to 1C.

23. The “first data” in the first step of “receive first data associated with a set of systems used to implement a process” 410 includes virtually any one or more pieces of information to do with the set of systems and their performance ([0049] to [0054]). Examples include or more of the following:

·     the quantity and/or types of the set of systems used;
·     the output from the set of systems;
·     metrics and/or a value of the metrics associated with the set of systems and/or a process implemented by the set of systems;
·     text or responses from a survey or questionnaire
·     text or audio from an interview;
·     a document, a portion of a document or a group of documents that includes text or the like, such as a text document, file or a webpage; and
·     documentation or text related to various characteristics of the set of systems and the like, such as:
o   their type;
o   types of second data used;
o   formatting rules for second data used by each system;
o   data validation rules or procedures; and
o   procedures for violations of formatting or validation rules.

24. The “first data” may also be received, generated or handled by the systems analysis platform 230 in a variety of ways. These include:

· receiving some of the first data based on processing text ([0058]);
· receiving a file that includes the first data, for example, a text file, a comma separated file (CSV) or a Microsoft Excel file ([0067]);

·     receiving the first data via testing of the set of systems ([0055]);
·     processing one or multiple files that contains the first data to identify the first data ([0067]);
·     storing the first data ([0068]);
·     aggregating the first data in some way, for example as related to different systems or processes ([0069]) or different file types ([0070]) and aggregating and/or merging first data using big data analytics techniques ([0071]); and
·     determining whether the first data is corrupted or missing data and potentially receiving replacement first data for corrupted or missing first data ([0073]).

25. As described at [0055], testing the set of systems to receive the first data can include inputting:

“…tagged second data into the particular system (e.g., an intake system) to determine a manner in which the second data is processed by the set of systems. As a particular example, systems analysis platform 230 may determine to which systems (and in which order) the second data is sent, how the second data is processed by the systems, the format of the second data sent between systems included in the set of systems, and/or the like. In some implementations, systems analysis platform 230 may receive first data that identifies a manner in which the set of systems handled the input second data (e.g., whether the set of systems processed the second data, dropped the second data, generated an error based on the second data, etc.). In this way, systems analysis platform 230 may test a set of systems to receive the first data and/or identify a data flow via the set of systems.”

The second data may also be generated by the systems analysis platform 230 in certain formats (for example a date format is exemplified at [0056]) and the first data may relate to how the set of systems processed the second data in that format.

26. Testing may also involve integrated testing, as discussed at [0057]:

“In some implementations, when testing the set of systems, systems analysis platform 230 may perform integrated testing. For example, systems analysis platform 230 may test multiple systems and the manner in which the multiple systems interconnect (e.g., rather than testing one system at a time). This improves first data that systems analysis platform 230 receives as a result of testing the set of systems and improves identification of an error related to the set of systems.”

27. Where the first data is received based on processing text, this may involve the systems analysis platform 230 identifying terms in the text, based for example, on a tag or term list, such as a glossary or dictionary of terms. This processing can include the systems analysis platform 230 preparing the text for processing, for example by:

“…adjusting a font, adjusting formatting, adjusting spacing, removing white space (e.g., after a beginning quotation mark, before an ending quotation mark, before or after a range indicator, such as a hyphen dash, or a colon, or before or after a punctuation mark, such as a percentage sign). For example, systems analysis platform 230 may replace multiple spaces with a single space, may insert a space after a left parenthesis, a left brace, or a left bracket, or may insert a space before a right parenthesis, a right brace, or a right bracket. In this way, systems analysis platform 230 may use a space delimiter to more easily parse the text.” ([0060])

Other forms of text preparation comprise expanding acronyms, by using, for example, a glossary, contextual analysis or by searching the internet, or replacing characters or symbols with text, for example replacing “@” with “at”.

28. The systems analysis platform 230 may also apply a variety of procedures to identify, associate, characterise or handle items of text in some way ([0063] to [0066]). These include:

·     associating words in the text with particular tags, for example, whether a word is a singular noun or verb;
·     having a “word” refer to:
o   one or more characters, such as a string of letters or a dictionary word; or
o   a term or a subset of a term;

·     determining words via characters identified by certain delimiting characters, such as a space or punctuation mark;
·     generating a list of terms based on the tags;
·     identifying terms based on user input;
·     excluding terms associated with stop tags or stop terms;
·     converting terms to a base or root form when adding them to a list of unique terms e.g. “processed” and “processor” to “process; and
·     storing the unique list of terms.

29. The “system topology” in the step “determine a system topology for the set of systems using the first data” 420 may:

“…identify types and/or a quantity of systems used to implement a process. Additionally, or alternatively, the system topology may identify a manner in which systems are interconnected, a manner in which second data flows between systems of the set of systems, systems that are connected to client devices 210 (e.g., that permit user input), systems that are connected to other systems, and/or the like.” ([0076])

30. A number of ways are described in which the first data may be used by the systems analysis platform 230 to determine and handle the system topology ([0077] to [0081]), including:

·     processing the first data, as indicated;
·     identifying a term or tag included in text;
·     testing the set of systems in a similar manner described previously; and
·     storing and/or providing information for display that identified the system topology.

31. The systems analysis platform 230 may also “…identify a process flow of a process implemented by the set of systems”, for example by using a term or tag similarly as for determining the system topology ([0079]). Such process flow determination may also entail identification of which process flows are manual and which are automatic, again, for example by using a term or tag as for determining the system topology ([0080]).

32. A variety of ways are described as to how the systems analysis platform 230 may identify a set of control points as per step 430 ([0083] to [0090]). These include one or more of the following:

·     using the first data and/or the determined system topology;
·     processing the first data, such as, for example, via detecting certain terms in text in the first data;
·     testing the set of systems, for example, by tracking second data that is input into an intake system to a broker payment system, where a control point may be determined where data passes from the intake system to the broker payment system;
·     identifying where a system can receive second data; and
·     using a process flow for the process implemented by the set of systems.

33. The nature of the second data used in step 430 appears quite general, and:

“…may include data processed, used, and/or stored by the set of systems when implementing a process. For example, the second data may include data received via client device 210, data analyzed to generate a report associated with the process, data stored by the set of systems during the process, and/or the like. For example, in a consumer enrollment (sic) and broker reimbursement process, second data may include data that a consumer inputs into a user interface to enroll (sic) in a health insurance plan, data identifying a reimbursement payment due to a broker, and/or the like.” ([0084]).

34. The control points themselves are as discussed earlier in this decision, but it is perhaps helpful to reproduce [0085]:

“In some implementations, a control point may include a point in a system topology, or a step in a process, where the second data is received by a system, provided by a system, and/or exchanged between systems. For example, and for a consumer enrollment (sic) and broker reimbursement, the control point may include a point where the second data is sent from an intake system to a member system. Additionally, or alternatively, a control point may include a point in a system topology, or a point in a process, where second data is validated (e.g., for formatting), when a set of rules is applied to second data, and/or the like, such as when second data is received via user input and/or when second data is stored in a data structure. Additionally, or alternatively, a control point may include a point of connection between systems (e.g., where a first system is connected to a second system, where a first system is connected to client device 210, etc.).”

35. The set of metrics for step 440 generally appear to “…relate to performance of the set of systems, processes implemented by the set of systems, and/or the like” ([0093]). Examples include any one or more of the following ([0093] to [0099]), with reference, where given, to the consumer enrolment and broker reimbursement example:

·     the time taken for the set of systems to do some part of the process for example:
o   process registration of a broker with a health insurance company;
o   process a broker sign up of a new customer with a health plan;
o   associate a broker with a customer;
o   compensate a broker for new customers or renewals;
o   provide support services to a broker, e.g. resolving complaints;
o   provide performance management data;
o   perform a process

·     the percentage of processes or transactions completed by the set of systems;
·     the number of:
o   error-free records stored by the set of systems;
o   records with errors stored by the set of systems;
o   issues reported by persons who use the set of systems;
o   duplicate records stored by the set of systems;
o   new enrolment applications missing broker information;

·     the number and type of issues preventing or delaying sign up e.g. user interface will not accept input second data;
·     the timely generation of new sales reports, based, for example, on a schedule of when the reports are due;
·     metrics related to:
o   matching a broker with enrolment of a customer, for example the number of customer-broker matches made without errors;
o   compensating a broker for new customers or renewals e.g. the time taken to do so;
o   providing support services to a broker e.g. resolving complaints; or
o   the performance management of brokers e.g. profitability of a broker.

36. Identification of the values of the set of metrics in step 440 by systems analysis platform 230 includes ([00100] to [00103]) any one or more of the following:

·     comparing second data among the set of systems. For example, comparing the quantity of enrolments associated with a particular broker received by an intake system and the quantity of sign-ups for which the broker was reimbursed via a broker payment system to identify data loss or data leakage between the two systems;
·     using output from the set of systems. For example, by determining the number of errors generated by the set of systems, using information included in a report generated by the set of systems, and the like;
·     by monitoring the set of systems. For example, identifying the amount of time the set of systems takes to perform a process (e.g., generate a broker reimbursement payment after a consumer enrols in a health plan); and
·     based on processing the first data as described earlier. For example, by processing text associated with an interview of a user of the set of systems (e.g., by identifying a term and/or a tag).

37. Identification of an error by the systems analysis platform 230 according to step 450 ([00104] to [00121]) may include one or more of the following:

·     comparing the set of values to a set of threshold values, for example, comparing a processing time of the set of systems and a threshold processing time and whether the processing time is within threshold;
·     determining there is an error for a first value based on an error in a second value;
·     based on analysis of another set of systems;
·     identification of a similar pattern of values between a first set of values and a second set of values, for example by using artificial intelligence;
·     based on a term and/or a tag from text;
·     identifying a second tag or term associated with the first tag or first term, for example, a first term, such as ‘slow,’ ‘fast,’ ‘inadequate,’ ‘great,’ etc., associated with a phrase, such as ‘processing time,’ to identify an error concerning the processing time of the set of systems;
·     using a sentiment analysis on a term included in text to determine a positive or negative sentiment of the term;
·     based on responses to a questionnaire or a survey;
·     when a process flow of the process implemented by the set of systems does not match a set of rules identified by processing the first data;
·     determining there is a missing control point between two systems, for example, determining that there should be a control point to ensure second data quantifying the number of enrolments for which the broker is to be reimbursed matches a quantity of enrolments associated with the broker received by the set of systems before reimbursing the broker;
·     determining that a control point is not functioning correctly, for example where a system checks for a correct date format, but does not prevent other date formats from being entered;
·     based on the way the set of systems allow manipulation of stored second data, for example, if multiple systems store second data, determining there is an error if each of those systems can change the second data;
·     based on the way in which second data is mapped, for example, incorrect mapping of mapping of second data to data structure fields in a system;
·     based on output from a model created via machine learning, for example; and
·     determining the severity of a identified error.

38. The action to facilitate fixing of the error as per step 460 may include the systems analysis platform 230 undertaking any one or more of the following ([00124] to [00138]):

·     generating a recommendation, for example to implement a control point to fix an error;
·     creating a report including information identifying the error and/or a recommendation to facilitate remediation of the error;
·     scheduling a meeting for individuals associated with the organisation to discuss the error and/or a generated recommendation ;
·     sending a message (e.g. email or SMS) to client device 210, for example to provide an IT professional with information about fixing the error;
·     adding first data regarding the error to a repository of first data, for example to facilitate machine learning;
·     providing the first to another systems analysis platform 230 so this can perform analysis of another set of systems;
·     using the first data to identify an error in another set of systems, for example via machine learning or AI;
·     using artificial intelligence to determine a set of actions to undertake based on the error, which may include determining the likelihood of success or impact of the set of actions;
·     identifying a particular system on which to perform an action amongst multiple systems that could perform the action, for example, an earlier step in a process, relative to a second system associated with a later step of the process, on which to perform the action;
·     analysing a set of control points associated with or needed by the set of systems, this may involve determining an optimal configuration of the control points to ameliorate errors;
·     incrementally recommending or performing an action to implement various control points, thereby allowing testing of each control point, so as to determine a minimum configuration of control points needed to correct identified errors;
·     determining that, if an implemented control point positively impacts an error, potentially by a certain amount, that no further actions are needed, or, potentially if that is not the case implementing a second action then testing for the impact of the second action; and
·     testing the set of systems after performing the action, for example to gauge the effect of the action.

39. While the discussion from the description with regard to steps 410 to 460 is primarily contextualised from the view of the systems analysis platform 230, as that is understood from figure 2, it is quite clear from [0037] that the invention is not necessarily limited in terms of the nature, type and arrangement of hardware used. Paragraphs [0025], [00140], [00144] and [00146] indicate that the invention is not necessarily restricted to any particular arrangement or form of hardware and/or software, or in the nature of the process concerned:

“[0025] As indicated above, Fig. 1A-1C are provided merely as an example. Other examples are possible and may differ from what was described with regard to Fig. 1A-1C. For example, other examples may include additional or different systems than those shown in Figs. 1A-1C. In addition, other examples may relate to processes other than a process for consumer enrollment (sic) in a health insurance plan and/or reimbursement of a broker, may relate to organizations other than an insurance company, and/or the like.”
“[00140] Although the implementations described herein may use a consumer enrolment and broker reimbursement process to illustrate various examples, the implementations may apply to other types of processes, including processes outside of the healthcare/insurance context that are implemented using a set of systems. For example, the implementations may be used to analyze a set of systems that implement a financial/banking process, a software development process, or a manufacturing process.”
“[00144] As used herein, the term component is intended to be broadly construed as hardware, firmware, and/or a combination of hardware and software.”
“[00146] It will be apparent that systems and/or methods, described herein, may be implemented in different forms of hardware, firmware, or a combination of hardware and software. The actual specialized control hardware or software code used to implement these systems and/or methods is not limiting of the implementations. Thus, the operation and behavior of the systems and/or methods were described herein without reference to specific software code-it being understood that software and hardware can be designed to implement the systems and/or methods based on the description herein.”

40. Similarly, the process flow from figure 4 is not necessarily limiting:

“[00139] Although Fig. 4 shows example blocks of process 400, in some implementations, process 400 may include additional blocks, fewer blocks, different blocks, or differently arranged blocks than those depicted in Fig. 4. Additionally, or alternatively, two or more of the blocks of process 400 may be performed in parallel.”

41. The effect and characterisation of the invention as described is given as follows:

“[0024] In this way, the systems analysis platform increases an efficiency of analyzing a process of an organization, thereby conserving processing resources via quick and efficient analysis of systems used to implement the process. Furthermore, in this way, the systems analysis platform improves accuracy of a result/output of a process, thereby conserving processing resources that would be consumed due to inaccurate results/outputs. Furthermore, in this way, the systems analysis platform improves data communicated between systems, thereby conserving processing resources that would otherwise be consumed as a result of damaged, corrupted, or incorrect data.”; and
“[00141] Implementations described herein enable a systems analysis platform to generate a system topology used to implement a process. Furthermore, implementations described herein enable a systems analysis platform to identify sources of data loss, data leakage, or other issues that have occurred, or might occur, during implementation of the process. Furthermore, implementations described herein enable a systems analysis platform to generate a recommendation and/or perform another action to improve the process.
[00142] In this way, the systems analysis platform increases an efficiency of analyzing a process of an organization, thereby conserving processing resources via quick and efficient analysis of systems used to implement the process. In addition, in this way, the systems analysis platform improves accuracy of a result/output of a process, thereby conserving processing resources that would otherwise be consumed due to inaccurate results/outputs. Furthermore, in this way, the systems analysis platform improves data communicated between systems, thereby conserving processing resources of the systems that would otherwise be consumed as a result of damaged, corrupted, or incorrect data.”

The Claims

42. Several proposed amendments have been made to the application during examination. After the latest proposed amendments, the application comprises 15 claims, of which claims 1, 5 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below. The entire claim set is given at Annex A to this decision.

“A device for automatically identifying and fixing one or more errors associated with a set of systems used to implement a process, including:
one or more processors that:
prior to receiving first data associated with the set of systems, the first data including information related to an operation or a performance of the set of systems:
receive or generate second data, the second data including information to be used by the set of systems during the process, and perform a test of the set of systems used to implement the process, the test performed using the second data, wherein receiving the first data is based on performing the test of the set of systems;

process the first data based on receiving the first data, the processing of the first data including using at least one of:
natural language processing,
text analysis, or
computational linguistics;

identify a term or a tag included in the first data based on processing the first data;
identify a quantity or a type of systems included in the set of systems based on the first data;
identify a manner in which the set of systems are interconnected after identifying the quantity or the type of systems; and
determine a system topology for the set of systems based on:
the term or the tag; and
identifying the manner in which the set of systems are interconnected;

identify a set of control points associated with the set of systems based on the determined system topology, the set of control points including a set of points in the system topology where the second data is received by the set of systems;
identify a set of values for a set of metrics related to the set of systems based on identifying the set of control points, the set of values identified based on the first data;
identify an error related to the set of control points or the set of metrics based on identifying the set of control points or the set of values;
perform an action to facilitate fixing any error.”

The Remaining Objection

43. As noted, the only objection outstanding is that the claims are not for a manner of manufacture. This objection has been pursued throughout all four examination reports. The reasoning presented by the Examiner has evolved somewhat, being quite general in the first report, but has remained materially consistent across reports two to four. The second report provides a detailed basis for the objection, while reports three and four fine tune the arguments in view of amendments and submissions made by the Applicant. It is apparent, from the second report onwards, that the objection may be summarised, in a general way, as alleging that the claimed invention is, in substance, a scheme, defined by certain steps as outlined in the claims, for identifying and fixing errors in computerised systems. This is perhaps best illustrated by the following passages from the fourth examination report:

“As previously discussed, the substance of the claimed invention is a series of steps including preforming (sic) a test of the second data associated with the set of systems prior to receiving the first data, determining the system topology for the set of systems based on the first data, identifying a set of control points of the set of systems based on the system topology, identifying a set of metrics based on the control points, identifying errors associated with the control points or metrics and performing an action to correct the identified error. Although the claimed invention is implemented via a computer system, the substance and hence the contribution of the claimed invention lies in the selected steps in the scheme to achieve the end result of identifying and correcting a system error.”

The Applicant’s Submissions

44. The Applicant’s submissions begin with several pages of what may be characterised as general commentary on recent patent office decisions in the manner of manufacture space, which are not specifically relevant to the patentability of the application. This segues into something of an analysis, of various decisions of the Patent Office and the Federal Court concerning manner of manufacture. These submissions provide commentary on the decisions concerned and their alleged relevance with respect to the present invention. What I draw from these submissions, other discussions of various decisions, such as eBay Inc. [2020] APO 49 (“eBay”) and CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1168 (“CCOM”), and principles from the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure (“MPP”) is the need for me to apply the principles as have been developed by well-established Federal Court authority

45. In any case, as will be seen, there is no material difference between the principles adopted in this decision and those put forward by the Applicant as applied to the application at the balance of the submissions, extending from pages 3 to 17 of the same. These submissions comprise a consideration of the claimed invention in light of ‘key factors’ from Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 (“RPL”) said to be “…favourable with respect to the patent subject matter eligibility of the claimed invention” (Applicant’s submissions at page 3). I will consider these submissions as appropriate later in this decision.

Relevant Legal Principles

Manner of Manufacture

46. The statutory basis for manner of manufacture is found at s18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (the “Act”) which states:

“an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.”

47. Fundamental principles with respect to manner of manufacture were outlined by the High Court in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67 (“NRDC”) at [14];102 CLR 252 at 275:

“It is therefore a mistake, and a mistake likely to lead to an incorrect conclusion, to treat the question whether a given process or product is within the definition as if that question could be restated in the form: ‘Is this a manner (or kind) of manufacture?’ It is a mistake which tends to limit one's thinking by reference to the idea of making tangible goods by hand or by machine, because ‘manufacture’ as a word of everyday speech generally conveys that idea. The right question is: ‘Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s. 6 of the ‘Statute of Monopolies’”

48. The NRDC decision related to a process for eradicating weeds from crop areas. A test applicable to the facts of this case was given in NRDC at [22], 275:

“The point is that a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art (see Re Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation's Application (1958) RPC 35, at p 36) - that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour.”

49. In Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120 (“Grant”) the court considered the patentability of what may be generally described as a business system or method directed towards protecting assets via the creation of a trust, this not involving any computer implementation. Their Honours in Grant (at [26]) did not consider the question as to whether a business system is or is not patentable. Rather they found (at [47]) Mr Grant’s claimed systems and methods were not for a manner of manufacture in the sense described in NRDC:

“It has long been accepted that ‘intellectual information’, a mathematical algorithm, mere working directions and a scheme without effect are not patentable. This claim is ‘intellectual information’, mere working directions and a scheme. It is necessary that there be some ‘useful product’, some physical phenomenon or effect resulting from the working of a method for it to be properly the subject of letters patent. That is missing in this case.”

50. More recently the authorities have directly considered the patentability, or otherwise, of computer implemented business methods, most notably in Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (“Research Affiliates”) and RPL. The discussion in RPL referred to the terminology from NRDC, with the observation at [117] that such terminology was apposite but “…not conclusive of patentability”. This observation was given with respect to consideration of a similar conclusion by the majority in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc. [2015] HCA 35 (“Myriad”) at [23]:

“This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications. Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology. Consistently with that approach, and without resort to the ‘generally inconvenient’ proviso in s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, there may be cases in which the court will decide that the implications of patentability of a new class of invention are such that the invention as claimed should not be treated as patentable by judicial decision”.

51. It was in this light that their Honours, at [96] to [98] of RPL, outlined considerations useful in determining whether a computer implemented business method is patentable:

“A claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology. The basis for the analysis starts with the fact that a business method, or mere scheme, is not, per se, patentable. The fact that it is a scheme or business method does not exclude it from properly being the subject of letters patent, but it must be more than that. There must be more than an abstract idea; it must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention is performed. Where the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation. It is not a patentable invention simply to ‘put’ a business method ‘into’ a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well- known and understood functions.
Is the mere implementation of an abstract idea in a well-known machine sufficient to render patentable subject matter? Is the artificial effect that arises, because information is stored in RAM and there is communication over the Internet or wifi, sufficient? Does any physical effect give rise to a manner of manufacture? Are the mere presence of an artificial effect and economic utility, without more, sufficient to determine manner of manufacture?
It is not a question of stating precise guidelines but of deciding, in each case, whether the claimed invention, as a matter of substance not form, is properly the subject of a patent.”

52. Thus, in relation to computer implemented inventions, it is necessary to look at the invention as a matter of substance, rather than as a matter of form. Upon doing so one will then be able to ascertain if this substance provides for a manner of manufacture using the established authorities. Relevantly RPL and Research Affiliates provided principles that assist in determining where the substance of these types of inventions resides and whether that material is patentable. In particular at [99] to [107] of RPL, their Honours reiterated a series of these principles from Research Affiliates (in particular at [94]). I note that the principles from Research Affiliates and RPL were recently cited with approval in Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 (“Rokt”) at [69], in Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223 (“Repipe2”) at [4], in Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202 (“Aristocrat”) at [29] and [106], and by an expanded Full Court in Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 (“Encompass”) at [77] et seq.

53. Conveniently the principles concerned have been summarised at [189] of Rokt Pte Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2018] FCA 1988 (“Rokt Pte Ltd”):

“The respondent submitted that the law as laid out in Research Affiliates and RPL Central held that:
‘17.1 The Court must decide, as matter of substance not form, whether the claimed invention is the proper subject-matter for a patent: RPL Central at [99]; Research Affiliates at [106], [117].
17.2 This requires consideration of both the claims of the Application and the invention described in the body of the specification: RPL Central at [114].
17.3 The assessment is not done mechanically. There are no precise guidelines or mathematical formula. It is “a question of understanding what has been the work of, the output of, and the result of, human ingenuity” and then applying the developed principles: Research Affiliates at [116]. See further RPL Central at [112]:
Recognising that the claims are to a method and system comprising a combination of integers, it is necessary to understand where the inventiveness or ingenuity is said to lie ...
17.4 One well-settled principle is that a distinction exists between a technological innovation and a business innovation. A technological innovation is patentable. A business innovation is not: Research Affiliates at [94]; RPL Central at [100]. Consequently, a business method or scheme is not, per se, a proper subject for letters patent: RPL Central at [96]. Nor are abstract ideas, mere intellectual information or mere directions for use patentable: Research Affiliates at [101]; RPL Central at [100].
17.5 A computerised business method or scheme can, in some cases, be patentable. However, “[w]here the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation”: RPL Central at [96] (emphasis added). This requires “some ingenuity in the way in which the computer is used”: RPL Central at [104]. It is not a patentable invention “to simply ‘put’ a business method ‘into’ a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well-known and understood functions”: RPL Central at [96]. In other words, if the ingenuity lies in the business method or scheme alone, the invention will not be patentable despite the computer-implementation.
17.6 Thus, a claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan, or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology: RPL Central at [96]. Contrary to [the applicant’s submissions at [49]], this is a binary distinction: the invention is either an unpatentable scheme or plan, or it is a patentable improvement in computer technology. In conducting the analysis, it is useful to:
17.6.1 ascertain whether the contribution to the claimed invention is technical in nature: RPL Central at [99], Research Affiliates at [114];
17.6.2 consider whether the invention solves a “technical” problem within the computer or outside the computer: RPL Central at [99]; Research Affiliates at [103];
17.6.3 consider whether the invention results in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed: RPL Central at [99], Research Affiliates at [118];
17.6.4 consider whether the invention requires merely “generic computer implementation”, as distinct from steps which are “foreign” to the normal use of computers: RPL Central at [99], [102]; Research Affiliates at [101]; and
17.6.5 consider whether the computer is merely the intermediary, configured to carry out the method using program code for performing the method, but adding nothing to the substance of the idea: RPL Central at [99].’”

54. I note that the above principles were explicitly accepted by Robertson J. at [201] of Rokt Pte Ltd. While the decision in Rokt Pte Ltd was overturned in Rokt this was not on the basis of any error in the principles listed above, which I accept are correct, noting that [189] of Rokt Pte Ltd represents a convenient summary of the principles from RA and RPL. I also note that essentially identical principles were adopted by McKerracher J in Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2019] FCA 1956 (“Repipe1”) at [39(5)], which was upheld in Repipe2, nor was there, as I understand it, any fundamental disturbance of the principles enunciated in Repipe1 as a result of Repipe2.

55. It is perhaps convenient here to note that the Applicant has made arguments, for example at page 9 of the submissions, about whether the application of the method produces a practical and useful result. It is perhaps of some note that “a practical and useful result” does not explicitly appear as one of the considerations in this decision, by virtue of its absence in Rokt, and what this might mean in terms of this decision. In that regard I refer to what I said at [37] to [40] of Amsted Rail Company, Inc. [2021] APO 25 (“Amsted”) and to the comments of Deputy Commissioner in Grzegorz Malewicz [2022] APO 11 at [71] (“Grzegorz Malewicz”), as to the view that “a practical and useful result”, while not irrelevant to the analysis, is not necessarily determinative of patentability in a positive sense. I will return to this later in the context of the submissions concerned.

56. Overall, I took the Applicant as accepting that the question is to be answered as a matter of substance, particularly in view of the considerations from RPL cited by the Applicant. While expressed somewhat differently from the considerations in Rokt Pte Ltd, I do not take this to lead to material differences in terms of the conclusion to be drawn, noting that the principles from Rokt Pte Ltd are distilled from RPL and similar authorities

Stringency of Tests

57. As examination was requested after 15 April 2013, the substantive amendments of the Act brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 apply to the present application. In particular, the amendments to s49 of the Act allow the Commissioner to refuse an application if she is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the invention, so far as claimed, satisfies the criteria of s18(1)(a).

Do the Claims Comprise a Manner of Manufacture?

58. I will initially consider this question with regard to independent claim 1 and will further consider the other independent claims and dependent claims as appropriate.

Claim 1

59. It is perhaps trite, but the fundamental question I need answer is what does the claimed invention comprise as a matter of substance? To assist in answering that question I note that claim 1 can be summarised as follows:

1.there is first data associated with a set of systems used to implement a process, the first data including information relating to the operation or performance of the set of systems;
2.there is a computerised device (one or more processors) for automatically identifying and fixing one or more errors associated with the set of systems, that:
a.prior to receiving the first data:
i.receives or generates second data, the second data to be used by a set of systems used to implement a process
ii.performs a test of the set of systems, the test performed using the second data;

b.receives the first data, the first data based on the test performed on the set of systems;
c.processes the first data using at least one of:
i.natural language processing;
ii.text analysis; or

iii.computational linguistics’

d.based on processing the first data, identify a term or tag included in the first data;

e.identify the type or number of systems in the set of systems based on the first data;
f.identify the way in which the set of systems are interconnected, after identifying the type or number of systems;
g.determine a system topology for the set of systems based on:
i.the term or the tag; and
ii.identifying the way in which the set of systems are interconnected;

h.identify a set of control points associated with the set of systems based on the system topology, these including a set of points in the system topology where second data is received by the set of systems;
i.identify a set of values for a set of metrics related to the set of systems based on identifying the set of control points, the set of values identified based on the first data;
j.identify an error related to the set of control points or the set of metrics based on identifying the set of control points or the set of values;
k.perform an action to facilitate fixing any error.

60. I will now consider whether the claimed invention is patentable by recourse to the considerations at [189] of Rokt Pte Ltd. I will also consider, where appropriate, the Applicant’s submissions regarding factors drawn from RPL, although I note that there is a significant degree of overlap in the Applicant’s submissions regarding each of the factors. Where possible, I have tried to address the Applicant’s submissions as relevant for each of the factors I have outlined below, even were the Applicant has discussed these in connection with a different factor. References to the “claim” in the following discussion means claim 1.

Is the contribution to the claimed invention technical in nature?

61. To assess this requires an understanding of the technical features of the invention, both individually and collectively, and the effect of carrying out the invention.

62. There are clearly individual features encompassed within each of the integers of the claim as identified above, that are either technical in nature or make use of technical features. For example, the processor is clearly a computerised device, as are the set of systems themselves. There are also various steps that involve the generation, exchange and processing of data, such as the first and second data, which make use of the technical abilities of the computerised device and the set of systems, which themselves are computerised. Similarly, the identification or determination of various pieces of information, such as the type or number of systems, the way the set of systems are interconnected, the system topology, control points etc. would appear to involve some form of processing of data using the technical abilities of the computerised device.

63. However, the computerised device in the form of the one or more processors is not specified in any way in the claim. Selection of this is entirely up to the skilled addressee, who may utilise any such device as known to them in implementing the invention. While the “set of systems” would seem to be limited in view of the “process” concerned, that process is itself virtually any process that could be thought of where computers are used to implement a process. This means that the set of systems are in reality any set of systems that could be used to implement any process as known to the skilled addressee. Unsurprisingly the nature of the computerised device and the set of systems as they appear in the claim must simply mirror the generality of these features as discussed in the description.

64. The generation, exchange and processing of data throughout the claim, as I understand it, simply makes use of the abilities of computerised devices as known in the art, particularly in view of the non-descript nature of the computerised devices as defined in the claim. Similar can be said for the identification or determination of various pieces of information, such as the type or number of systems, the control points, set of metrics and set of values for the set of metrics and the error.

65. I note that processing the first data is somewhat specified (using one of natural language processing, text analysis or computational linguistics), as is determining the system topology (using the term or tag and identification of the way in which the set of systems are interconnected). No particular instructions or guidance on how to process the first data using the techniques indicated or determining the system topology based on the term/tag and systems interconnection are provided in the description. I therefore take it that these merely extend to the use of computer technology as well known in the art.

66. Consequently, to the extent there are individual technical features in, or made use of by, the claim, these merely extend to “…computer technology that is utilised for its basic, typical or well-known functions” (Rokt at [89]), and do not provide in substance a technical contribution to the invention.

67. It is now necessary to consider whether the claim as a whole or several sub features of the claim interact to provide a technical contribution. I do not see any collection of sub features that interact in such a way so as to provide for this. There is clearly interaction between several of the sub features in that one sub feature is dependent on another, for example the step comprising identification of a term or tag in the first data is dependent on processing of the first data at item 2c. Similarly, identification of the control points is dependent on determining the system topology. However, at the level of generality provided in the claim, these are merely logical dependencies between quite generalised variables that have or are to be determined. No technical effect per se is apparent in such dependencies, merely steps to be followed. In addition, none of the interaction between or within the steps requires anything beyond the use of standard computing technology.

68. This leaves whether the claim, when considered as a whole, provides for a technical contribution. It is quite clear that the claim comprises a series of steps that involve the generation, exchange and processing of data to determine various items of information, such as the system topology and control points, whereby a set of values for a set of metrics based on the first data are determined and then used to identify an error, after which an action is taken to facilitate fixing of the error. It is thus apparent that the claim results in the identification of an error and then calls for the undertaking of some action to facilitate the fixing of that error.

69. However, merely identifying an error in a set of systems and then undertaking some action that facilitates its remediation does not provide for any technical effect or contribution per se. There may, of course, be some technical contribution in the way the error is identified or in the remediation, but that is not apparent in the claim. While certain data or information are to be determined or identified as part of the claim, these are posed at a high level of generality. The first data, for example, is merely information related to an operation or performance of the set of systems, while the second data is characterised as including information that is used by the set of systems during the process. Identification or determination of each of the data or items of information in the claim are similarly quite general. For example, “identify a quantity or a type of systems included in the set of systems based on the first data” merely amounts to a direction to the skilled addressee to use the first data to work out the number and type of systems in the set of systems, using the “computerised device”. Other steps to identify or determine certain items of information are posed at a similar level of generality. The generic nature of the process and the set of systems, as discussed above, adds to the generalised nature of the steps to identify/determine the information, and of the generalised nature of the information or data concerned. Similarly, the remedial action is entirely general, and indeed does not even lead to fixing the error per se – it need only “facilitate” the fixing of the error.

70. Based on the discussion above, the claim appears little more than an investigative algorithm of general steps to be followed for error analysis that identifies an error within any set of computerised systems that may be used to implement any process known to the skilled addressee, with any action being undertaken to facilitate fixing the error. No technical contribution is apparent.

71. The Applicant has addressed this consideration at pages 12 to 17 of its submissions. Here the Applicant argues that the contribution of the invention is technical in nature as “...the present claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem (refer submissions in relation to first ‘key factor’ outlined herein)” (submissions, page 12). The Applicant’s submissions regarding that “key factor”, and why I disagree with them, are given below.

72. The Applicant argues that:

“…in asserting that the substance, and hence, the contribution of the claimed invention lies in the selected steps of the scheme to achieve the end result of identifying and correcting a system error (refer page 4 of the Fourth Examination Report), the Case Examiner appears to have neglected to consider various technical features that, in combination, provide a technical contribution since the claimed systems analysis platform provides a number of technical benefits including increased efficiency with respect to the implementation and analysis of a process within an organisation, increased accuracy with respect to the result/output of the implemented process, and conserved processing requirements. Accordingly the claimed invention involves more than a selected set of abstract steps and moreover, has practical application.” (submissions at pages 12 to 13).

73. However, it should be apparent that I do not consider that there is any technical contribution provided as such in the claims via the various technical features, whether individually or in combination, for reasons as discussed above. I am unconvinced that the claimed invention would necessarily increase the efficiency of analysing and implementing a process, as that would be highly dependent on the precise process concerned, how it is implemented using a particular set of systems, and how the claimed invention is implemented with regard to that process and set of systems, all of which is up to the skilled addressee.

74. Even if there were some efficiency gains to be had, which as discussed is highly dubious, the Applicant has still failed to appreciate that the claimed invention merely provides a very high level process to be followed for error analysis of virtually any process that involves a set of systems, and merely having a claim that amounts to general directions to “find an error and do something that facilitates fixing it” within the general spectrum of processes concerned does not necessarily provide for a technical effect.

75. One reason for this is, at the level of generality of the invention as claimed and described, the error and the associated “efficiency” gain may have nothing to do with anything in the technical realm. It could, for example, simply relate to how effective a business process is, such as where the metrics relate to the time to provide support services (e.g. resolving complaints) or the time to process the signing up of a new member with a health insurance company ([0093]). Another reason is that any increased efficiency (of any kind technical or otherwise) with respect to analysing a process of an organisation goes, is achieved merely by making use of the standard abilities of computers to rapidly exchange and process data, i.e. via automating an error analysis process, which reinforces the conclusion I have drawn regarding this consideration. Similarly, I fail to see how there would necessarily be any conservation of processing resources, even assuming there is some increased accuracy, in due to the generality of the invention, both as claimed and described. A further reason is that the claim does not necessarily actually fix any error at all, and hence any putative efficiency gains are not necessarily realised.

76. Finally, the discussion of RPL and Aristocrat at pages 13 to 14 of the Applicant’s submissions is merely a restatement of the legal principles concerned, which is of little assistance to the Applicant’s case where there is no material exposition of how those principles apply to the facts of this matter.

Does the invention solve a “technical” problem within the computer or outside the computer?

77. It is not apparent that the claim solves a technical problem within or without the computerised apparatus concerned. Merely identifying an error in a process involving a set of computerised systems and then undertaking unspecified action to facilitate remediation of the error is not addressing any technical difficulty as such. Nothing within the claim appears to address or overcome any technical difficulties. It is also worth noting, as above, that the level of generality of the claim is such that the error identified may have nothing to do with any technical issues within any of the plethora of set of systems that fall within the scope of the claim.

78. In addition, the fact that the action merely facilitates the fixing of any error indicates that the action concerned need only be a step on the path to ultimately resolving the error. As exemplified in the description, and falling within the scope of the claim, the action could simply be generating a recommendation or scheduling a meeting between individuals so as to discuss the error and/or a recommendation. Hence the claim does not necessarily fix any error at all, let alone solve a technical problem within or without the computerised apparatus concerned. At best the claim could be said to solve the problem of how to generally identify errors in a set of systems used to implement a process.

79. In summary, I do not consider that the invention solves any technical problem, either within or without the computerised apparatus of the claim.

80. I note that the Applicant addresses this consideration at pages 3 to 4 of its submissions. Here the Applicant argues that:

“The Case Examiner asserted in the Second Report that the Applicant has failed to explicitly identify the technical problem that the present application addresses.
The Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the problem that the present claims seek to address is described in paragraph [0011] of the present specification, namely:
‘An organization may implement various processes to conduct operations of the organization. The organization may use various computer-based systems to implement the various processes. In some cases, the systems may have been developed and/or tested independently. In addition, there may be a lack of controls between the systems. This can result in data loss, data leakage, system errors, data corruption, data incompatibilities, reduced accuracy of system output, and/or the like during implementation of the various processes.’

Problems associated with lack of controls between various computer-based systems of an organisation leading to data loss, data leakage and system errors during implementation of a process within an organisation clearly reside in the technical realm. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims seek to provide a solution to at least ‘physical and material problems outside of the computer’ (refer comments of Hearing Officer at paragraph 26, Accenture Global Solutions Limited [2022] APO 8), associated with data loss, data leakage and system errors which are all technical problems.”

81. In my view, the Applicant’s assertions that the problems discussed “…clearly reside in the technical realm” involve a rather loose use of the term “technical” as discussed at [26] of Accenture Global Solutions Limited [2022] APO 8. In my view, the level of generality at which these issues are couched in the claim and in the description does not mean that they are necessarily technical problems. They may arise, for example, by defects in the way the set of systems are organised or in how data is handled at a high level in the set of systems in ways that have nothing to do with technical difficulties or defects in those systems.

82. This is reinforced in the description, where, for example, an error is identified where multiple systems in the set of systems can edit stored data, thereby leading to data inconsistencies in the process ([00118]). Other data errors exemplified include “…where the set of systems permits input of second data in formats different than that specified by the specification document” ([00117]) or where there is no control point to ensure that a quantity of enrolments for which a broker is to be reimbursed equals a quantity of enrolments associated with the broker ([00116]). All of these examples fall within the scope of the claim. I am unable to identify anything in the specification that relates to technical difficulties or problems that were dealt with or overcome in relation to the data issues outlined by the Applicant, and the same applies to the claim.

83. Notwithstanding the above, in reality, the Applicant has simply not engaged with the invention as claimed. As discussed above, the nature of the process, set of systems, the error and the action facilitating remediation of the error are very general and, as a consequence clearly extend to things which have nothing to do with the data issues discussed by the Applicant. And of course, there is also the matter that, as discussed above, the claim does not necessarily fix the error at all and, at best, appears to solve the rather general problem of how to generally identify errors in a set of systems used to implement a process.

Is there an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed?

84. Arguably, there could be some improvement in the functioning of the set of systems, in view of the fact that there is identification of an error associated with the set of systems and that an action is taken to facilitate fixing of the error. However, in line with what has been discussed above, merely identifying an error in a set of systems used to implement a process, and then facilitating remediation of that error, does not necessarily improve the functioning of that set of systems. Given the generality of the claim, the error concerned may relate, for example as referred to in the description, to the set of systems not having a control point for ensuring that the quantity of consumer enrolments for which a broker is to be reimbursed equals the quantity of enrolments associated with the broker. The identification and remediation of such an error (assuming this occurs) might improve a consumer enrolment and broker reimbursement process, however it will not in any way improve the functioning of any computerised systems that are used to implement such a process.

85. As noted above, the fact that the action merely facilitates the fixing of any error indicates that the action concerned need only be a step on the path to ultimately resolving the error – the action need not actually resolve the issue at all, and as such the claim need not actually resolve the error. It can thus be seen that the claim does not necessarily lead to any improvement whatsoever in the functioning of anything about or associated with the set of systems or of the process concerned.

86. In summary I consider that there is no improvement in the functioning of the computerised devices utilised in the claim. Indeed, there is not necessarily an improvement in the functioning of anything that falls within the scope of the claim.

87. The Applicant has addressed this consideration at pages 4 to 8 of the submissions. On pages 4 to 5 the Applicant argues that:

“The claimed device of the present invention includes a number of technical features that, in combination, enables the automatic identification and rectification of one or more errors associated with a set of systems used to implement a process. In this regard, the Applicant refers the Hearing Officer to, for example, paragraph [0022] of the present specification which states:
‘As shown in Fig. 1C, and by reference number 180, the systems analysis platform may identify an error related to the set of control points and/or the set of metrics. For example, the systems analysis platform may identify a missing control point (e.g., based on documentation data, data related to another set of systems, etc.), such as a lack of validation of formatting of data provided from one system to another system. As another example, the systems analysis platform may identify a value of a metric that satisfies a first threshold value rather than a second threshold value, or does not satisfy a third threshold value.’

The claimed device also provides a range of technical benefits including, increasing the efficiency of analyzing a process of an organisation, improved accuracy of a result/output of a process and improved data communication between systems thereby conserving processing resources (refer paragraph [0024] of the present specification).
In view of the at least the technical benefits arising from the claimed invention as outlined above, the claimed systems analysis platform should be considered to involve “sufficient inventive concept” such that the computer is considered improved or at least, the use of the computer is improved.”

88. Again, I consider that the Applicant is using technical in a rather loose manner. I am unconvinced that the claimed invention would necessarily increase the efficiency of analysing a process in terms of the physical functioning of computerised devices, as that would be highly dependent on the precise process concerned, how it is implemented using a particular set of systems, and how the claimed invention is implemented regarding that process and set of systems, all of which is up to the skilled addressee. Similarly, I fail to see, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary in the specification, how there would necessarily be any improved data communication, in a technical sense, between systems or any conservation of resources due to the generality of the invention, both as claimed and described.

89. The remainder of pages 5 to 8 delve into a lengthy exposition essentially regarding, as I understand it:

i.how previous case law and Patent Office decisions, including eBay, Jagwood Pty Ltd [2020] APO 38 (“Jagwood”), Advanced New Technologies Co, Ltd [2021] APO 29 (“ANT”), Aristocrat, and CCOM demonstrates that there need not be an “improved computer” or “improvement in the functioning of the computer” for an invention to be considered patentable;

ii.that if a claimed invention is not a scheme “i.e., it provides a technical solution to the problem faced by the inventors, yields at least one practical and useful result, and has ‘practical application’” (page 5), then it is patentable;
iii.“…that provided the implementation of an abstract data structure (i.e., abstract information) on a generic computer involves sufficient inventive concept and results in a material advantage, then the claimed invention should be considered directed to patent-eligible subject matter” (page 8), with reference made to the MPP, CCOM and RPL in developing this line of reasoning.

90. None of these submissions assist the Applicant in the factual circumstances of this matter. The submissions regarding item i. appear to be nothing more than a statement of the fact that there are a variety of considerations to weigh in assessing patentability, and any one of these is not necessarily preponderant, depending on the circumstances concerned.

91. The submissions regarding item ii. appear to be little more than cherry picking and giving preponderant weight to some of the considerations that may be used to assess patentability to the exclusion of other considerations and with no regard to the factual circumstances to hand.

92. The submissions regarding item iii appear to be nothing more than an expression of the fact that a claimed invention that comprises implementation of an abstract idea in a computer may be patentable if, in substance, it provides for a material advantage.

Does the invention require merely “generic computer implementation”, as distinct from steps which are “foreign” to the normal use of computers?

93. For reasons as discussed above, it is quite clear that all the computerised features of the claimed invention are being used in a generic sense in that use is merely made of the well-known functions and abilities of the same. There is nothing in the use of any of the computerised features which is foreign to the normal use of computers.

94. The Applicant has made arguments relevant to this consideration at pages 10 to 12 of the submissions. The Applicant has suggested at page 10 of its submissions, with reference to Aristocrat that:

“In view of the guidance provided in the recent decision in ARISTOCRAT21, it would appear that a consideration regarding whether an invention uses ‘generic computer technology’ should be afforded less weight as compared to other relevant factors when assessing whether a claimed invention involves patent-eligible subject matter since it is unclear what the phrase ‘generic computer technology’ actually means (refer ARISTOCRAT21, paragraph 35)…
…the comments of the Full Court in ARISTOCRAT21 make it clear that consideration regarding whether a claimed invention involves generic computing implementation does not assist when assessing whether a claimed invention represents an advance in computing technology and there is a danger of ‘talking loosely’ with an expression such as ‘generic computing technology’ since the meaning of this phrase is unclear. Accordingly, in view of ARISTOCRAT21, considerations regarding ‘generic computing technology’ should be avoided when assessing whether a claimed invention comprises patentable subject matter.”

95. However, I consider that these arguments are misconceived. As is apparent from the Applicant’s own submissions, the warning from Aristocrat was with regard to the dangers that could arise in not properly defining or characterising what is meant by “generic computing technology” within the particular context under consideration. Aristocrat was not mandating the relative weight to be given to this consideration per se or suggesting that it was no longer a relevant consideration.

96. The Applicant also argued (at pages 10 to 11 of the submissions) that:

“Moreover, at least on the basis of the CCOM decision, recently affirmed in ARISTOCRAT 21, the fact that the present claims solely involve generic computing implementation cannot be a valid consideration when assessing whether a claimed invention comprises patent-eligible subject matter. Even in the event claims define the implementation of a scheme implemented upon a generic computer, this is insufficient to conclude that the substance of the claimed invention resides solely in the non-patentable scheme. Such a conclusion can only be regarded valid if the claims relate solely to ‘intellectual information’ or a method ‘that is in the nature of directions for use’”. (emphasis in original)

It is, of course, possible for an invention to comprise generic computer implementation and still be patentable. However, it is not the case that inventions involving generic computer implementation can only be held non-patentable if they relate solely to “intellectual information” or a method “that is in the nature of directions for use” as asserted by the Applicant. The question is whether the invention, as a matter of substance, is for a manner of manufacture. In that regard an invention may in substance be for a scheme that is neither “intellectual information” or a method “that is in the nature of directions for use”, but it would still not be for a manner of manufacture.
The Applicant also suggests, at page 11 of its submissions, that the present invention is analogous to CCOM
“...since the present claims define a method that, when implemented on a standard computing device, results in an improved systems analysis platform with increased efficiency with respect to analyzing a process of an organisation, thereby conserving processing resources as a result of quick and efficient analysis of systems used to implement the process (refer paragraph [0013] of the present specification).” (emphasis in original)
The fact that the invention, both as claimed and described, does not necessarily lead to conserving processing resources as per paragraph [0013] of the specification has already been discussed in this decision and need not be canvassed further. As far as any increased efficiency (of any kind technical or otherwise) with respect to analysing a process of an organisation goes, as discussed earlier in this decision, such efficiency gains do not necessarily reside in the technical realm and otherwise simply amount to taking advantage of the standard abilities of computers to exchange and process data to automate an error analysis process.

Is the computer merely an intermediary, configured to carry out the method using program code for performing the method, but adding nothing to the substance of the idea?

For reasons as discussed above the computerised features are specified at only a generic level to merely facilitate an algorithm for error analysis and facilitate remediation of the same in a set of systems used to implement a process. That is, they are merely an intermediary facilitating the algorithm concerned and add nothing of substance to the same.
The Applicant did not appear to make any submissions that were specifically directed to this consideration, but I would take submissions made with regard to the other factors as being generally relevant to this factor as well. To the extent this is the case, I refer to my discussion of the Applicant’s submissions elsewhere in this decision.

The Applicant’s Submissions Regarding “Practical and Useful Result” and other submissions regarding principles

The Applicant has provided arguments regarding there being a practical and useful result throughout its submissions. For example, at page 4:
“Even though the present claims are clearly directed to solving at least a technical problem outside the computer (for at least the reasons outlined by the Applicant herein), the Applicant respectfully submits that, in any event, the decisions in JAGWOOD and ANT, for example, have confirmed the long-established principle that a claimed invention is not required to solve a technical problem to be considered to comprise patent-eligible subject matter, and it is generally sufficient to establish the presence of patentable subject matter if a claimed invention provides a technical solution to a problem faced by the inventors and also provides a practical and useful result or an “artificially created state of affairs” (refer, for example, paragraph 75 in JAGWOOD and paragraph 70 in Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd [2021] APO 29 (ANT)).”
Putting aside questions of a “practical and useful result” for the moment, the problem for the Applicant is the invention as claimed does not necessarily provide a technical solution to any problem. There are simply a series of steps that are to be followed to allow for generalised error analysis of a set of systems used to implement a process.
Similarly, paragraph [75] of Jagwood and paragraph [70] of ANT do not assist the Applicant. The statements in Jagwood at [75] are merely reiterating the unremarkable proposition of determining “…whether the substance of the invention produces an ‘artificial state of affairs, in the sense of a concrete, tangible, physical, or observable effect’.” That is, Jagwood is merely looking to see whether the substance falls within the bounds of subject matter that is traditionally held to be patentable, which in the present case merely begs the question to be answered, rather than assisting the answer desired by the Applicant.
In terms of there being a “practical and useful result” in ANT at [70], the Delegate was merely utilising this consideration, amongst other considerations, as part of a weighing up exercise as to patentability of the invention in that case. ANT is not warranting that the presence of a “practical and useful result” is necessarily determinative of patentability. In this regard I refer to my discussion above concerning consideration of a “practical and useful result” in the context of Amsted and Grzegorz Malewicz.
The Applicant provided, at pages 9 to 10 of its submissions, further arguments as to the claimed invention providing for a practical and useful result. I consider that the claimed invention can be characterised as providing, in the most general sense of the phrase, a “practical and useful result” in that it provides for error analysis in a set of systems used to implement a process. As discussed elsewhere in this decision, I do not consider this to lead to a technical result or improvement per se. This is in contrast to the Applicant who again referred to paragraph [13] of the description for the alleged technical benefits that the practical and useful result provides, despite the claim not necessarily providing any technical result or benefit. In any case, as discussed, the presence of a practical and useful result is not determinative.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Applicant took issue with the Examiner’s view that a “practical and useful result” may be insufficient to confer patentability:
“Furthermore, although the Examiner conceded at page 4 of the Third Examination report that the presently claimed invention produces a practical and useful result, the Examiner continues to assert that this is insufficient to confer patentability, and for there to be patentability, there must be some material advantage that may be a useful result in relation to ‘a physical or tangible entity’. The Applicant respectfully submits that this is clearly incorrect and does not find any basis in the principles established in various judicial decisions with respect to the patent subject matter eligibility of computer-implemented inventions.”
I have already pointed to Amsted and Grzegorz Malewicz regarding the fact that a “practical and useful result” is not necessarily sufficient to confer patentability. Notably Amsted, at [39], cited Research Affiliates at [114]:
“The invention set out in the specification is directed to the index itself. The method of the invention is not one that has any artificial or patentable effect other than the implementation of a scheme, which happens to use a computer to effect that implementation. There is no technical contribution to the invention or artificial effect of the invention by reason of the intervention of the inventors. To take the words of NRDC at 268, the process does not produce ‘either immediately or ultimately, a useful physical result in relation to a material or tangible entity.’ The claimed method, the result of the ingenuity of the inventors, does not produce such a result; the ingenuity is in the scheme. Again, drawing from NRDC at 270, there is a useful result of the claimed process but there is no physical thing ‘brought into existence or so affected as the better to serve man’s purposes’. There is no ‘physical phenomenon in which the effect, be it creation or merely alteration, may be observed’ (NRDC at 276).” (emphasis in original)

In addition, the invention in RPL was held to be non-patentable, despite the fact that it provided a useful result; see RPL at [40]. Consequently, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, there is Full Court authority for the proposition that a “practical and useful result” is not necessarily sufficient to confer patentability, and that there need be a material advantage in relation to a physical or tangible entity for an invention to be patentable. Indeed, the need for a material advantage of this type is hardly remarkable, noting that the reasoning of the Full Court at [114] in Research Affiliates was based on NRDC.

The Applicant also suggests that:
“…the Examiner’s approach in assessing the subject matter eligibility of the present claims is incorrect, and Middleton and Perram JJ have confirmed in paragraph 26 of ARISTOCRAT21 the following two-part test when assessing the patentability of a claimed invention:
(a) Is the invention claimed a computer-implemented invention?
(b) If so, can the invention claimed broadly be described as an advance in computer technology?
Clearly there can be an ‘advance in computer technology’ despite the implementation of an abstract idea on a generic computer provided the implementation of the abstract idea by the computer provides a practical and useful result as confirmed by the Full Court in ARISTOCRAT21. In other words, if a computer’s only purpose is to give effect to the abstract ideas embodied in the code which it executes, without more, this would not warrant the grant of a monopoly (refer, ARISTOCRAT21, paragraph [89]).” (submissions at 16)
However, in my view, this is a rather superficial interpretation of Aristocrat. I consider that the two-part assessment by Middleton and Peram JJ in Aristocrat is consistent with previous Full Court authority in this area, including the expanded Full Court in Encompass. In this regard the step of “can the invention claimed broadly be described as an advance in computer technology?” is understood as incorporating the various considerations established in earlier Full Court authorities in answering the question posed. In substance Aristocrat does not appear to be creating a “new” test per se, other than perhaps putting forward the rather uncontroversial proposition that one should first understand whether an invention is computer implemented. This much is apparent where one broadly considers the reasoning of the majority in Aristocrat, where earlier Full Court authorities are cited to support the reasoning given and the conclusions reached; see for example the citing of: RPL at [18], [22] and [29]; Rokt at [22] and [29]; Encompass at [22] and [29] and Research Affiliates at [29].
I also fail to see how Aristocrat stands for the proposition that a practical and useful result is all that is needed to confer patentability. The Applicant has not pointed to any passage in Aristocrat that would support such a proposition, nor is one apparent to me. Paragraph [89] s merely a statement of principles, and while the Applicant has indicated how its invention amounts to something “more” at pages 16 to 17 of its submissions, these simply reiterate similar arguments about technical problems, technical solutions, technical features and improvements and efficiencies already discussed in this decision. Nothing further need be added here.
Finally, the Applicant provided a line of arguments, at pages 13 to 16 of the submissions, regarding the alleged patentability of the present application via a comparative analysis of eBay. However, these arguments ignore the fact that each case must be considered on its merits, and a finding in one matter does not necessitate a finding regarding patentability in another matter with different factual circumstances. The finding in eBay at [41] that:
“Obtaining congestion information during the course of an event is clearly a technical problem that requires a technical solution and processing that information in a manner to present it to the user in the form of a recommended route to avoid the congestion is addressing a real and physical problem that, when implemented as per the claims, does produce a practical and useful result that is not related to a business process or business rules”

does not assist me in assessing the facts of this matter, which clearly do not relate to anything about obtaining congestion information during the course of an event. Indulging in an extensive comparative analysis of this matter, and of eBay, as apparently sought at page 16 of the submissions, will not assist in determining or understanding this matter, which I must decide using the relevant principles as applied to the facts of matter, and not how they were applied to eBay or any other matter. Furthermore, the delegate found that eBay was patentable in providing a technical solution to a technical problem, this not being present in this case as per my discussion above.

What is the substance of the invention in claim 1 and is this patentable?

On weighing up the above considerations, which all suggest that the substance does not reside in the technical features but rather in a series of general steps for error analysis in the context of any process implemented using a set of systems, it follows that the substance of the invention does not reside in the computerised technology utilised, either alone or in combination. Rather the substance of the invention resides in an algorithm, in the sense of being merely a set of instructions, for generalised error analysis in a set of systems used to implement any process. Put simply this is:
· In the context of any process implemented via any set of systems, undertake error analysis via the set of steps outlined in claim 1 and then do something to facilitate fixing the error identified.
While the Applicant has made extensive submissions regarding the claimed invention being patentable, I am unable to identify a clear statement of what the Applicant considers the substance of the invention to be. However, as best understood, I do not take the Applicant’s views as to the substance to be different to mine.
The remaining question now is whether the substance falls within the bounds of patentable subject matter as established by authority. I consider that it does not. The substance clearly amounts to what I consider to be merely a set of instructions, in effect a scheme, for undertaking error analysis within any process implemented using any set of systems and then doing something to facilitate the fixing of an error that is identified. It is apparent that the Applicant disagrees with this characterisation, as apparent from “Balancing the considerations” at pages 17 to 18 of the submissions, however the nature and effect of the claimed invention is apparent from considering the relevant factors. In particular, the generality of the processes, set of systems, errors, the action to facilitate the fixing of the errors, all of which extend to non-technical matters, and the use of nothing more than standard computing technology to implement the claimed invention, elevate the substance to little more than a scheme for error analysis and the taking of some action that facilitates remediation of errors identified. No technical benefit or effect is necessarily achieved as a consequence of performing the claimed invention.
The fact that there might be a “practical and useful result” of some broadly considered kind does not change this conclusion. As noted in Amsted at [79] “The difficulty for the Applicant is that this “practical and useful result” is not one that leads to patentability”.

Are Independent Claims 5 and 11 for a Manner of Manufacture?

Claim 5 defines a computer implemented method for “…automatically identifying and fixing errors” that is in similar terms as for claim 1. However, instead of a “set of systems”, claim 5 refers to “multiple systems”. Rather than a “test”, the first data is received based on how the multiple systems processed the second data. It is also specified that the first data is stored by the device, while determining the system topology is based only on the term or tag, rather than the term or tag and the manner of interconnection. The system topology in claim 5 is said to identify the manner of interconnection and the quantity and type of the systems. The “control points” are said to include points of connection among the systems, while there are “multiple errors” and “multiple actions” to facilitate fixing of any “multiple errors”.
In my view, the differences between claim 5 and claim 1 are such that there is no material difference between the substance of the invention for claim 5 as compared to claim 1. The use of “multiple systems” is technologically indistinguishable from the “set of systems” in claim 1. The first data being received based on processing of second data is, if anything, more general in nature than the “test” of claim 1. Storing of the first data merely makes use of the standard ability of computers to store data and provides nothing more than this to the claim. Arguably such data storage must inherently occur in some fashion in claim 1 anyway, since the first data is received and processed. The slightly different determination of the topology and what the topology defines does not provide for any apparent material advantage – it appears to be merely a variation, using/with the same information, of what occurs in claim 1. The extension to “multiple errors” does nothing to change the character of the claimed invention.
Consequently, claim 5 is not for manner of manufacture for similar reasons as given with regard to claim 1.
Claim 11 defines a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed automatically identify and fixing errors that in a way that is in similar terms as for claim 1. Like claim 5, it refers to “multiple systems” and receives the first data based on processing of second data. The use of a non -transitory medium storing executable computer readable instructions is simply making use of computer storage of instructions as standard in in computing technology. The control points are associated with the second data, while there are one or more metrics and one or more values instead of a set of metrics and a set of values. There are one or more errors, instead of an error, that negatively impact the performance of one or more systems and actions are taken to positively impact those errors.
As for claim 5, I do not see the differences between claim 11 and claim 1 being such that the substance of claim 11 is materially different to claim 1. Why the “multiple systems” and nature of receiving the first data is of no significance in terms of substance has been discussed with regard to claim 5. The differences relating to the control points, metrics, values, errors and actions amount to slight variations on claim 1 that do materially change the character of the substance. In this regard, the nature of claim 11, like claim 1, is so general in terms of the process and systems involved, that the “performance” and the actions to positively impact those, clearly extend to non-technical matters, such as mere business processes. The fact that an action “positively impacts” on an error does not necessarily mean the error is actually resolved.
Consequently, claim 11 is not for manner of manufacture for similar reasons as given with regard to claim 1.

Are any of the dependent claims for a Manner of Manufacture?

I have also considered each of the dependent claims. These comprise additional features that amount to:
·     adding additional steps to the scheme as defined in the independent claims making use of standard computer technology:
o   claim 2: identifying the set of control points based performing the test of the set of systems;
o   claim 3: process the first data based on receiving the first data; identifying a point from the set of points in the system topology where second data is to be received via a user interface associated with a system, based on processing the first data, and the one or more processes identify the set of control points based on identifying the point in the system topology where the second data is received via the user interface;
o   claims 4 and 14: the one or more processors identifying a particular system on which to perform the action based on identifying the error, and perform the action based on identifying the particular system;
o   claim 6: providing second data to a system based on generating the second data; determining a manner in which the second data is provided or received by the multiple systems based on providing the second data to the system; and, determining the system topology includes doing so based on determining the manner in which the second data is provided or received by the multiple systems.
o   claim 7: the term or tag identifying a control point and identifying the multiple control points includes do so based on processing the first data;
o   claim 8: performing the multiple actions includes sending a message to another device based on identifying the multiple errors, the message including information identifying the multiple errors or identifying a recommendation to facilitate fixing of the multiple errors;
o   claim 12: process the first data based on receiving the first data; identify one or more process flows for the one or more processes based on processing the first data, and determine the system topology based on identifying one or more process flows for the one or more processes;
o   claim 13: process the first data based on receiving the first data; determine that the one or more systems permit manipulation of the second data at one or more points in the system topology, and identify the one or more errors based on determining that the one or more systems permit manipulation of the second data at the one or more points in the system topology;
o   claim 15: generate a recommendation to implement multiple control points to facilitate fixing the one or more errors based on identifying the one or more errors; perform a first action, of the one or more actions, to implement a first control point, of the multiple control points, based on generating the recommendation; perform a test of the first control point based on performing the first action; determine whether implementation of the first control point positively impacted the one or more errors based on performing the test; and perform a second action, of the one or more actions, to implement a second control point, of the multiple control points, based on determining that implementation of the first control point failed to positively impact the one or more errors; or
·     the nature or type of the information or error concerned:
o   claim 9: the first data includes: information related to the quantity of systems included in the multiple systems, the type of the systems included in the multiple systems, the manner in which the multiple systems are interconnected, output from the multiple systems related to an operation or a performance of the multiple systems, or text related to the multiple systems;
o   claim 10: the multiple errors include: a missing control point, an improperly functioning control point, a first value, of the multiple values, that does not satisfy a threshold value, or a second value, of the multiple values, that satisfies the threshold value.
I do not see anything in the additional steps provided by claims 2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 12 to 15 that materially varies the substance of their respective independent claims. These are simply more steps to the error analysis scheme that operate at the same level of generality as their independent claims and do not provide for any material advantage that would confer patentability. Similarly, the selection of the type of information or the nature of the error in claims 9 and 10 is of such generality as to make no material difference to the substance of the invention as identified in independent claim 5. It follows that none of the dependent claims are for a manner of manufacture.

Is there anything within the Application that provides for a Manner of Manufacture?

In addition to there being no patentable material in the claims, my perusal of the application does not reveal anything that, as a matter of substance, extends beyond the invention discussed above, either for the invention as claimed or as described. I conclude that there is nothing in the application, beyond that already considered, that could be claimed so as to result in a manner of manufacture.

Conclusion

None of the claims are for a manner of manufacture. In addition, I see no material in the application that could be made the subject of a claim so as to result in that claim being for a manner of manufacture. I therefore refuse the application.

Dr W.E. Guinea

Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Annex A – Claims