DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is issued in response to Patent Board Decision on 7/1/2026.
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.
Claim 1, 4-6 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to statutory category product. The claim recites “extract a first set of feature vectors from contents of the inbound transmission; comparing the first set of feature vectors with a second set of feature vectors corresponding to a prior outbound transmission; based on comparing the first set of feature vectors with the second set of feature vectors, determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission; analyzing the second set of feature vectors to determine whether the prior outbound transmission includes a request for the particular value”, “extracting the particular value from the inbound transmission” and “updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the inbound transmission”. The processes of extracting features from inbound and outbound messages and generating feature vectors, determination of relation and between inbound and outbound transmissions based on feature vector comparison and determining if a data value is being requested in an earlier transmission or messages and further extracting a particular value from message and updating the data object with a particular value involve observation, judgement and evaluation. Accordingly, recited limitations fall into abstract idea groupings of mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) under Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG. Therefore, aforementioned processes can practically be performed in the human mind and directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – “receiving an inbound transmission comprising a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore” and “responsive to determining that (a) the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission, and (b) the prior outbound transmission includes the request for the particular value for the particular parameter of the data object. Above mentioned additional clam elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). The claim further recites - “applying language processing logic to the inbound transmission…” - use of machine learning may be characterized as using machine learning as a tool or generally linking the abstract ideas identified above to the technology of AI and machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or (h). This generic high-level recitation of machine learning is nothing more than mere instructions to apply on a computer with a possible field of use limited to machine-learning field. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of receiving request for data is mere data gathering well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 and 5 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim from which they depend on and further recite limitations – “particular value is extracted from the editable data object in the inbound transmission ” and further “determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to a prior outbound transmission requesting the particular value comprises identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission”. The process of extracting data and determining relationship between inbound and outbound transmissions/messages and identifying some common value in transmissions involves observation, judgement and evaluation. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, aforementioned processes can practically be performed in the human mind and directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – “requesting the particular value”. Above mentioned step of receiving requested data recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of receiving requested data is mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 4 and 5 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 is directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim from which they depend on and further recite limitations “the prior outbound transmission comprises an editable data object; the inbound transmission includes the particular value in the editable data object” and further “wherein the common reference comprises one or more of an outbound transmission identifier, a data object identifier, a parameter name, or a parameter identifier”. Above mentioned steps of marking data using identifier recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering using labels as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, this additional elements do not provide integration into a practical application. Therefore claim 6 is still directed to an abstract idea of mental process under Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of labelling data using identifier is well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is directed to statutory category product. The claim recites “extract a first set of feature vectors from contents of the inbound transmission; comparing the first set of feature vectors with a second set of feature vectors corresponding to a prior outbound transmission transmitted prior to the inbound transmission; based on comparing the first set of feature vectors with the second set of feature vectors: determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission; analyzing the second set of feature vectors to determine whether the prior outbound transmission includes a request for the data verification for the particular value”, “extracting the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission” and further “updating the data object in the datastore with the particular value comprised in the prior outbound transmission”. The processes of extracting features from inbound and outbound messages and generating feature vectors, determination of relation and between inbound and outbound transmissions based on feature vector comparison and determining if a data is being requested for validation in transmissions or messages and updating the data object with extraction of data involve observation, judgement and evaluation. Accordingly, recited limitations fall into abstract idea groupings of mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) under Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG. Therefore, aforementioned processes can practically be performed in the human mind and directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – receiving an inbound transmission comprising a data verification for a particular value for a particular parameter of a data object stored in a datastore; and responsive to determining (a) that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission, and (b) that the prior outbound transmission includes the request for the data verification for the particular value. Above mentioned additional elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). The claim further recites - “applying language processing logic to the inbound transmission…” - use of machine learning may be characterized as using machine learning as a tool or generally linking the abstract ideas identified above to the technology of AI and machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or (h). This generic high-level recitation of machine learning is nothing more than mere instructions to apply on a computer with a possible field of use limited to machine-learning field. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of receiving request for data is mere data gathering well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8-10 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim from which they depend and further recite limitations – “updating the datastore with the particular value in the prior outbound transmission is responsive to identifying a confirmation in the inbound transmission confirming the data verification of the particular value”, “extracting the particular value from the data object and updating the datastore with the extracted particular value” and further “determining that the inbound transmission corresponds to the prior outbound transmission comprises identifying a common reference in both of the inbound transmission and the prior outbound transmission”. The process of updating data object with a particular value upon receiving a confirmation, extracting data and determining relationship between inbound and outbound transmissions/messages and identifying some common value in transmissions involve observation, judgement and evaluation. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, aforementioned processes can practically be performed in the human mind and directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as In particular, the claim recites additional elements – “inbound transmission” and “outbound transmission” . Above mentioned step of receiving requested data recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of receiving requested data by outbound transmission is mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 8, 9 and 10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 11 is directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim from which they depend on and further recite limitations “the common reference comprises one or more of an outbound transmission identifier, a data object identifier, a parameter name, or a parameter identifier”. Above mentioned steps of marking data using identifier recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering using labels as “obtaining information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, this additional elements do not provide integration into a practical application. Therefore claim 11 is still directed to an abstract idea of mental process under Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements of labelling data using identifier is well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 4-11 would be allowable upon overcoming their pending abstract idea rejection.
Dependent claim 2, 3 and 12 are objected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if written in independent form to include all of the limitations of their respective base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13-17 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH A DAUD whose telephone number is (469)295-9283. The examiner can normally be reached M~F: 9:30 am~6:30 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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
/ABDULLAH A DAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2164 /AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
