DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to reply filed on 11/19/2025. Claims 24-44 are pending in this Action. Claims 1-23 had been previously cancelled.
Remark
In the response filed 11/19/2025, claims 24, 31, and 38 have been amended, no claim has been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “the claims do not recite a mental process. Amended claim 24 recites, inter alia, ‘storing the diff entry in a diff data store, wherein the diff data store is embodied on a computer storage media.’ At least the above-quoted elements of claim 1 constitute ‘concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not mental processes.’ M.P.E.P.§ 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the claimed write action is not an action that can be performed by a human mind nor does it fall within any of the enumerated categories of mental processes set forth in the MPEP.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, with respect to the limitation of “storing the diff entry in a diff data store, wherein the diff data store is embodied on a computer storage media,” the Examiner agrees that this limitation is not a mental process. However, this limitation is considered to be an additional limitation analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Said limitation is recited at a high level of generality and given its broadest and reasonable interpretation, it is not more than storing data in a storage device which is an insignificant-solution and well-understood, conventional, and routine computer activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). As such, said limitation of “storing the diff entry in a diff data store, wherein the diff data store is embodied on a computer storage media” fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application and amount to more than abstract idea.
Secondly, the applicant alleges that “the claimed write action is not an action that can be performed by a human mind nor does it fall within any of the enumerated categories of mental processes set forth in the MPEP.” The Examine holds that the subject matter of “real-time write(s)” is recited in context of “determining whether one or more real-time writes were performed during generation of the diff entry by analyzing timestamps of the one or more real-time writes to determine if the timestamps are a batch timestamp associated with generating the diff entry; when a real-time write timestamp for a real-time write is after the batch timestamp, generating a second diff entry representing for the real-time write.” As it can be seen, the limitation is related to “determination” of the time (when) a write operation was performed by analyzing a timestamp of the write operation. Contrary to the applicant’s allegation, the claim does not perform any “write action.” It only determines when a write operation is performed.
Furthermore, the specification of current invention does not strictly limit the subject matter of “one or more real-time writes” to computer write operations using by a computer to store and record data and the human mind is incapable of executing such computer write operations. However, the specification (e.g., paragraph 74) provides evidence that the “writes” could be “user writes” including “direct input from contributors.” Thus, given the limitation its broadest and reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the claimed “real-time writes” could be data input by users or contributors, not computer write operations executed by a computer.
Therefore, the claimed process of “determination” of the time of a real-time write by analyzing the timestamp of the real-time write constitutes the concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgement which is practically be performed in human mind. As such, this step of “determining whether one or more real-time writes were performed during generation of the diff entry…” is indeed a mental process.
The courts have determined in the case Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., a “computer implemented method” could be still abstract idea because the underlying invention could be performed by humans without a computer.” Thus, merely requiring a method to be “a computer-implemented method” is not sufficient to make the claim patent-eligible. A claim requiring a general-purpose computer to implement a mental process is still an abstract idea. "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind."
Here, in the current claim invention, aside from steps of storing data and providing data to a third system (which are extra-solution and well-understood, routine, and convention computer activities), the rest of the steps generating a first and second summary data, determining a difference, updating the first summary, generating a diff entry, determining whether real-time writes were performed during generating of diff entry…, and generating a second diff entry are mental process that could be permed by humans using a pen and a paper. The claim invention further recites one or more general purpose computers (e.g., a computer-implemented computer) at a high-level of generality to perform aforementioned mental processes. Here, “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” As such, the claim invention of 24-44 are directed to abstract idea because the underlying patent-ineligible invention in the claims themselves could be performed by the human mind without requiring a computer.
As it was established above, the implementation of current invention, under the broadest and reasonable interpretation, is not limited to a computer implemented cannot to be said to improve computer technology. Therefore, the claimed invention recited in amened claims 24, 31, and 38 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it does not improve a computer functionality or other technology. As such, claims 24, 31, and 38 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, prior 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 24-44 for being directed to abstract idea are maintained.
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 24-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 24-44 are directed to a method, program product, or a system which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 24, 31, and 38 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the steps of:
generating, by at least one processor, a first summary data using a set of data, the first summary data includes a first entity identifier and a first value associated with the first entity identifier; [construes a mental process in which a person with aid of pen and paper can mentally generate a data summary (e.g., by writing down on a paper)]
generating, by the at least one processor, a second summary data using the first set of data and a second set of data, the second summary data includes a second entity identifier and a second value associated with the second entity identifier; [construes a mental process in which a person with aid of pen and paper can mentally generate a data summary (e.g., by writing down on a paper)]
determining, by the at least one processor, a difference between the first summary data and the second summary data; [construes an evaluation concept which could be practically be performed in the human mind]
updating, by the at least one processor, the first summary data based upon the difference between the first summary data and the second summary data; [construes a mental process in which a person with aid of pen and paper can mentally
modify or change a data summary based on an observation and evaluation]
generating a diff entry representing the difference to a data store, the diff entry comprising an entity identifier identifying an entity whose attributes have changed and the changed attributes, wherein the diff entry is indexed based on a date and an entity identifier; [construes a mental process in which a person with aid of pen and paper can mentally generate an entry/record that contains the difference to a data store and generate an index for the entry/record]
determining whether one or more real-time writes were performed during generation of the diff entry by analyzing timestamps of the one or more real-time writes to determine if the timestamps are a batch timestamp associated with generating the diff entry; [construes observation, evaluation and judgement concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind. The specification of current invention does not limit the real-time write operations executed in underlying computer layers to store or record data which the human incapable of executing them. However, the specification (e.g., paragraph 74) provides evidence that the “writes” could be “user writes” including “direct input from contributors.” Thus, given the limitation its broadest and reasonable interpretation, the claimed “real-time writes” could be input by users (not a computer write operation executed inside a computer). Therefore, a user could mentally observe, evaluate, and judge based on analyzing data related to timestamps that whether writes performed during generation of entries and timestamps are associated with generating entries] and
when a real-time write timestamp for a real-time write is after the batch timestamp, generating a second diff entry representing for the real-time write; [construes a mental process in which a person with aid of pen and paper can mentally generate a second entry/record (e.g., by writing down on a paper)]
The claims recite generating a first and second summary data, determining the difference between the first and second summary data, updating the first summary based on differences, generating an entry, determining whether data is inputted/written during generation of entry by analyzing timestamps, and generating a second entry. The steps of current claimed invention could be performed in human mind and using pen and paper. As such, the claimed invention falls within at least one groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in human mind. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process.
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 24, 31 and 38 further recites generic computer components (e.g., “at least one processor” and “a memory”) to implement the steps of the invention. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and considered to be insignificant extra solution activities.
The claims further recite the additional limitation of “storing the diff entry in a diff data store, wherein the diff data store is embodied on a computer storage media” and “providing one or more diff entries from the diff data store and the second diff entry to a third-party system” that under broadest and reasonable interpretation considered to be storing data in a memory and outputting data which is an
insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the
abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation of processor and memory in claims 24, 31 and 38 are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims further recite the limitation of “storing the diff entry in a diff data store, wherein the diff data store is embodied on a computer storage media” and “providing one or more diff entries from the diff data store and the second diff entry to a third-party system” that under broadest and reasonable interpretation considered to be storing data in a memory and outputting data which is a well-understood and routine computing activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Thus, the claimed additional elements individually and/or in combination do not amount significantly more than abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 25-30, 32-37, and 39-44,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims. The dependent claims receiving, determining, and generating data which are either function of evaluation/judgement that can be done in the human mind or generic computer functions (e.g., inputting or outputting data) that do not amount significantly to more than abstract idea. Moreover, the function such “formatting bulk data into structured data” can be implemented by a person using pen and paper. The person could format or organize the received data into tabular format (i.e., structured) data on a piece of paper
and make structured data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
01/10/2026