Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on October 22, 2025, wherein claims 19-20 are currently pending for examination. Claims 1-18 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive.
35 USC §101 discussion:
The additional elements, among others, of natural language processing and wrapper induction are generic/general purpose known elements used to extract information from a larger set. Applicant also just states using “natural language processing” and “wrapper induction” when getting information and the claims are directed to using this information in an abstract way (as discussed below in the rejection). The terms “natural language processing” and “wrapper induction” are used in an “apply-it” fashion and are post-solution/extra-solution activities – no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the abstract idea) using generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing elements/components/etc.
As stated before, the claimed limitations and terms are just further abstract data comparison, analysis, and manipulation in organizing human activities. The claims (19-20) are geared towards getting raw information (the information itself being abstract in nature – e.g. tastes, venue, etc.,) and then structuring/organizing the information through analysis and manipulation and create more abstract information. The resulting information is then displayed for possible further analysis and decision making. Applicant states that the claimed steps are not abstract idea and/or integrated into a practical application also because “using free-form data to generate taste data, which is then analyzed to determine associations with application content…[t]he associations are then used to generate structured taste data that allows an application to use information.” It should be noted that free-form information is just raw unorganized abstract information that is collected and then this information is organized to make deductions (as stated above – through analysis and manipulation and create more abstract information (note that the deduction are also what applicant assumes will show “taste” information)). Ultimately, Applicant’s claims are just geared towards using abstract information to make abstract determinations on “taste” of people (likes and dislikes, etc.,). The information that is used is old and well-known type information. The elements of “graphical user interfaces,” “processor,” “computer/computer-readable medium,” “displaying” are used in an “apply it” fashion as generic/general-purpose computers or computing components/devices/element/etc., and just extra-solution/post-solution activity. Applicant only states associating abstract information (the free-form data (which is just general collected information which hasn’t been “organized” – note that the organization is dependent on personal requirements of organizations or individuals in the abstract; e.g. information could have some grouping/organization but to a specific organization/individual it is still free form for their intent and purposes)) with another abstract information which is not enough to overcome the §101 rejection. Applicant also only state the information is “from one or more users” (simply obtaining information). The information itself is abstract in nature and this information is viewed (according to the claims). The “graphical user interface” is the only technical element stated that is only used in an “apply it” fashion to view the information. Viewing information is done by humans and is an abstract step. The “graphical user interface” is clearly post-solution/extra-solution activity. The core inventive concept of the claims are clearly towards obtaining data (that was stored – and the data itself is abstract in nature (taste, venue, etc.,)), receiving more information/data through inputs, data analysis and manipulation to determine more data, and providing/displaying this determined data. The inventive concept is using the collected data and comparing the data to obtain results for decision making. The claims use data analysis and manipulate to curate results for people (provide information/recommendations to people) so that people can make decisions (for example, restaurants). These claims are directed towards gathering/collecting data, using the data for analysis, and manipulating/refining/etc., the data to generate more data.
The limitations of the independent claims and the dependent claims, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental activity of food industries/restaurants and providing services to customers (experience to customers)), and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the recitation of, for example, “computer-readable medium,” “executable instructions,” “processors/processing,” “displaying,” “graphical user interfaces (GUIs),” “natural language processing,” “wrapper induction operation,” etc. (as recites in claims 19-20), in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses obtaining data, data analysis to determine more data, and providing/displaying this determined data to organize human activities (managing behavior and interactions in activities). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic components (recitation of, for example, “computer-readable medium,” “executable instructions,” “processors/processing,” “displaying,” “graphical user interfaces (GUIs),” “natural language processing,” “wrapper induction operation,” etc. (as recites in claims 19-20)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04(d) and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers and computing terms/limitations (for example, “computer-readable medium,” “executable instructions,” “processors/processing,” “displaying,” “graphical user interfaces (GUIs),” “natural language processing,” “wrapper induction operation,” etc. (as recites in claims 19-20)) are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) using generic computer components. It is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). It should be noted that a “claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Memorandum (2019 Subject Matter Guidance), Section 111(A)(2). The U.S. Supreme Court has described “the concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. However, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. As the courts have explained, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability,” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216). And, although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id. Moreover, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the [Alice/Mayo] framework . . ., preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert, denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (2015)(“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”). Further, Appellant’s claims are different from those claims that the Courts have found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving “composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent eligible). In McRO1, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques” through the “use [of] limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules were limiting because they defined morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The present situation is not like the one in McRO where computers had been unable to make certain subjective determinations, e.g., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. The Background section of one of the patents at issue in McRO, Rosenfeld (US Patent 6,307,576 B1; issued Oct. 23, 2001), includes a description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303-06. There is no comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record. Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique claimed was “[groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
The claims further utilize a processor, network, interface, database, and other generic computing components without any improvement to the functioning of the devices themselves. See also Enflsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea ... the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”). The claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of § 101.”’ (Alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))).
To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the courts have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. In Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., for example, the CAFC held that claims directed to storing a verification structure in computer memory were directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality because they improved computer security. 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC determined the claims addressed the “vulnerability of license authorization software to hacking” and were thus “directed to a solution to a computer-functionality problem.” Id. at 1349. Likewise, in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., the CAFC held that claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” provided greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent eligible improvement in computer functionality. 879 F.3d 1299, 1304–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, the CAFC held patent eligible claims reciting “a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” because the claimed invention “improv[ed] computers’ functionality as a tool able to instantly access all parts of complex three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.” 906 F.3d 999, 1007–08 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1359–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding patent eligible claims reciting an improved user interface for electronic devices that improved the efficiency of the electronic device, particularly those with small screens”). And in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., the CAFC held patent eligible claims directed to an improved method of network security “using network monitors to detect suspicious network activity…generating reports of that suspicious activity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical monitors.” 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The CAFC concluded that the “focus of the claims was on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities,” namely “providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks.” Id. at 1303–04.
The CAFC has consistently stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool. For example, in Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, the CAFC held that claims to a method of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcasts were directed to an abstract idea. 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The CAFC determined the claims were not a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality because they simply used cellular telephones “as tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea.” Id. at 1262; see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting concrete physical components merely as “a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner”). Likewise, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), the CAFC held that claims reciting a system for providing web pages tailored to an individual user were directed to an abstract idea. 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The CAFC held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality. Id. at 1367, 1370; see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea). And in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, the CAFC held patent ineligible claims directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis.” 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC determined the claims were focused not on a physical-realm improvement to computers as tools but rather an improvement in wholly abstract ideas. Id. at 1168. The CAFC has also held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, the CAFC held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader’s order. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly “assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,” the CAFC held that this purported improvement in user experience did not “improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.” Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims “focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly” did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality). In sum, “software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See, e.g., id. 1336–39; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, this inquiry “often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities…or, in-stead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36). Against this background, Applicant’s claims are not directed to a practical application and are not patent eligible as they are only directed to providing customers experience (in the food and restaurant industry) using obtained abstract information (business process – a fundamental economic practice (organizing human activities – abstract idea); and using some mathematical concepts to get abstract results to use in decision making.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section 111(A)(2) (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application).
Furthermore, under step 2B, the recitations of the core inventive steps amount to little more than reciting that the computer system applies the abstract idea. These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant's application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0021-0025 [general-purpose/generic computers and computing components/devices/etc.,], 0074-0082 [general-purpose/generic computers and computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. As stated in the most recent guidelines provided by the office, “Simply appending well-understood routines and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specifies a high level of generality…” (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). The elements in combination (or alone) do not provide any material drawn to something significantly more than the claimed method of organizing these known activities. The claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Additionally, the claims simply gather data and describe the data by reciting, very generally, steps or organizing information through mathematical relationships. The steps further merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information. Applicant's claimed steps represent activities that could be performed by a human but are simply performed on a general purpose computer instead. The elements included in the claimed invention could, under broadest reasonable interpretation, be performed without a machine. Applicant is directed to the following references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Gottschalk v. Benson. The focus of the claims is on collecting information, manipulating and analyzing it (auditing and reporting), and outputting certain results of the collections and analysis (for further decision making and recommendations/suggestions/etc.,). Information as such is intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have also treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content (abstract business data/information), accessing/obtaining data, data analysis to determine more data and conducting data manipulation, then outputting/displaying the results, and not any particular assuredly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. It should be noted the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computers. The elements included in the claimed invention could, under broadest reasonable interpretation, be performed without a machine. Applicant is directed to the following references: (1) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Gottschalk v. Benson.
The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The core limitations require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. 754 F.3d 1350, 1355 (and also please refer to “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, page 7” for a listing of computer functions found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional and the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019). It should be noted the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computers. Limiting the claims to the particular environment and field of auditing business process of an organization to measure performance using generic computers is, without more, insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Merely gathering/selecting/acquiring information for collection, analysis (some using mathematical concepts/models), and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental/manual processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. Simply requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis. See Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016). The claims recite using known and/or generic computing devices and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice, at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant's application ((for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0021-0025 [general-purpose/generic computers and computing components/devices/etc.,], 0074-0082 [general-purpose/generic computers and computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the cited art in the current/previous art rejection, the art cited on the PTO-892, and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. The claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information, unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (at JMOL stage finding inventive concept in modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid display). Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6 (at pleading stage finding sufficient inventive concept in “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user”). The claims do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. See Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016). The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information-based abstract ideas. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above reasoning and explanation provided by the examiner in the Response to Arguments section is also fully incorporated in this rejection.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 19-20 are directed to a computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining data (that was stored – and the data itself is abstract in nature (taste, venue, etc.,)), receiving more information/data through inputs, data analysis and manipulation to determine more data, and providing/displaying this determined data. The claims use data analysis and manipulate to curate results for people (provide information/recommendations to people) so that people can make decisions (for example, restaurants). These claims are directed towards gathering/collecting data, using the data for analysis, and manipulating/refining/etc., the data to generate more data.
The limitations of claim 19 and 20, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the recitation of, for example, “computer-readable medium,” “executable instructions,” “processors/processing,” “displaying,” “graphical user interfaces (GUIs),” “natural language processing,” “wrapper induction operation,” etc. (as recites in claims 19-20) in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses obtaining data, data analysis to determine more data, and providing/displaying this determined data to organize human activities. If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computer/computing components/elements/etc., (recitation of, for example, “computer-readable medium,” “executable instructions,” “processors/processing,” “displaying,” “graphical user interfaces (GUIs),” “natural language processing,” “wrapper induction operation,” etc. (as recites in claims 19-20)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04(d); and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computer/computing limitations/elements (recitation of, for example, “computer-readable medium,” “executable instructions,” “processors/processing,” “displaying,” “graphical user interfaces (GUIs),” “natural language processing,” “wrapper induction operation,” etc. (as recites in claims 19-20)) are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) using generic computer components. It is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (organizing human activities (fundamental economic practices and data organization)) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes organizing human activities (fundamental economic practices and data organization)) involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The claims 19-20 (independent and dependent claims) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic computing devices and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014) at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0021-0025 [general-purpose/generic computers and computing components/devices/etc.,], 0074-0082 [general-purpose/generic computers and computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Prior art discussion (not a rejection)
As per the independent claim 19 the prior art of record most closely resembling Applicant’s claimed invention are Wilson et al., (US 2014/0280226) in view of Ward et al., (US 2014/0324624).
However, neither Wilson nor Ward disclose the specific limitations of the independent claim 19 which recites “identifying a candidate taste from the one or more tastes using a wrapper induction operation” where “wrapper induction operation” is explicitly described on paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s specification. Independent claim 19 is not rejected under prior art as given the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the Independent claim 19 cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892). The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant' s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claim 20, claim 20 depends on the allowed independent claim above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and is therefore not rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claim above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
Atzmon et al., (US 2013/0166649): Provides for generating a playlist, the method includes: receiving or detecting social network contextual information indicative of a sharing of a certain media entity between certain social network members; and updating, by a playlist generator, a playlist of media entities to be provided to an entertainment application user in response to the detecting of the social network contextual information. The entertainment application user is virtually linked to at least one of the certain social network members.
Goetz (US 9,374,411): Illustrates recommending content for users. A user is associated with a user preferred character that is represented in a first network content. A library is referenced to identify a recommended character based at least upon the user preferred character, the recommended character being represented in a second network content, the library associating the preferred character to the recommended character according to a relationship score. A recommendation is sent for presentation of the second network content.
Ramer et al., (US 2012/0215623): Discusses targeting advertising content which includes the steps of: (a) receiving first and second requests for advertising associated with first and second users, wherein the users are identified; (b) retrieving data pertaining to the users from a data provider; (c) selecting respective advertising content from the first and second sponsors based at least on a determination of relevancy of each advertising content to the data provider's data, wherein the relevancy determination generates respective relevancy scores; (d) determining the advertising content of the first sponsor is more relevant to the first user and the advertising content of the second sponsor is more relevant to the second user based on the respective relevancy scores; and (e) transmitting the advertising content of the first sponsor to the first mobile communication facility for display and transmitting the advertising content of the second sponsor to the second mobile communication facility for display.
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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/GURKANWALJIT SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625