DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to the communications filed on 9/2/2025. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 21-40 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 21-40 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 21-40 are directed to a method (i.e., process), a system (i.e., machine/apparatus), nontransitory medium (i.e., product) which are statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 21, 39 and 40 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of agenda data analysis, comprising: maintaining a list of user-selectable agenda issues; presenting to a user, the list of user-selectable agenda issues, wherein each of the listed user-selectable agenda issues is configured to be selected by the user via input received from the user; receiving, based on the input received from the user, agenda issues of interest to an organization, the agenda issues having been selected from the list of user-selectable agenda issues; scraping a plurality of sources to determine, for a plurality of policymakers, individual policymaker data from which an influence factor of each policymaker on each of the agenda issues selected as being of interest to the organization is determinable, perform functions of finding, indexing, and fetching information from the plurality of sources, and perform processing on the information from the plurality of sources to generate the individual policymaker data; calculating an influence factor model using the individual policymaker data, the influence factor model producing influence factor data, the influence factor data indicating an effectiveness of each of the plurality of policymakers in influencing a position of another of the plurality of policymakers for each of the agenda issues of interest to an organization, wherein the effectiveness of each of the plurality of policymakers is compared to an average effectiveness of the plurality of policymakers, wherein the influence factor model includes a trained model having been trained using a training set of policymaker data with labels indicating corresponding influence factor information; determining, for at least one policymaker of the plurality of policymakers, an overall effectiveness based on an aggregation of influence factors for each of the plurality of agenda issues; transforming the influence factor data into a graph associated with the at least one policymaker, the graph presenting the overall effectiveness of the at least one policymaker and effectiveness of the at least one policymaker in a common metric factors the graph further including a graphical element indicating the effectiveness of the at least one policymaker for at least one of the plurality of agenda issues relative to the average effectiveness of the plurality of policymakers based on the comparison; which include mental processes (observing, evaluating, data/information regarding agenda issues and policymakers and making a judgment and opinion on policymaker effectiveness), certain methods of organizing human activity based on managing personal behavior or interactions between people (following rules and instructions to determine and provide policymaker effectiveness data). Claims 22-38 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 21 with further details of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 21. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 21-40 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as internet-based, computer-implemented, a trained machine learning model, user interface, scraping {a plurality of sources} on the Internet using a web crawler and an extraction bot, graphical display, processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 21-40 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as internet-based, computer-implemented, a trained machine learning model, user interface, scraping {a plurality of sources} on the Internet using a web crawler and an extraction bot, graphical display, processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 21-40 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 9/2/2025 have been fully considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicants argued that the claims do not fall under any abstract idea grouping. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention recites the abstract idea of mental processes (observing, evaluating, data/information regarding agenda issues and policymakers and making a judgment and opinion on policymaker effectiveness), certain methods of organizing human activity based on managing personal behavior or interactions between people (following rules and instructions to determine and provide policymaker effectiveness data). Note that, once the computing technologies are removed to be analyzed in additional elements of the 101 analysis, remaining limitations can be performed in human mind and or with help of a pen and paper since these limitations focus on calculating and determining alphanumerical values without any complexity built in to the claims.
Applicants argued that the claims are directed to a practical application and significantly more of the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention merely uses the additional elements (i.e., technology) at their designed capacity without any changes or improvement to these elements. Further, applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of Core Wireless, Enfish, and Bascom cases/decisions.
Note that, for similar reason provided above, the claimed invention does not provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention includes:
Urken et al., (2003/0233274), Baarman et al., (KR 20130083838), Cook et al., (US 2006/0184463), and Dupont et al., (US 2012/0137367) as applied in the rejections in the previous Office actions.
Yan et al., (CN 105760947) discloses a method for analyzing meteorological environment influence factor of grid load using the grey correlation analysis based on a number of historical data and analyses temperature, humidity and weather factors.
Li et al., (CN 103337043) discloses a method for obtaining influence factor data of the operation state of the electric power communication and determining each influence factor data of the corresponding level in the power communication device attribute according to each said class attribute.
Simpson et al., (US 20170308986) discloses a method for mapping to milestones in a policymaking process by determining an influence factor for each of the identified individuals based on the patterns in the data unrelated to the predefined subject matter.
Onwujekwe et al. “Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria”, Health Research Policy and systems (2015) 13:46.
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention; wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624