DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed 13 June 2025.
Claims 24-26, 28, 30-32, 34-38, 42, 43 and 47-53 are currently pending. In the Amendment filed 13 June 2025, claims are amended, claims 1-23, 27, 29, 33, 39-41 and 44-46 cancelled and claims 48-53 are new. This action is Final.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 24, 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 34-38, 42, 43 and 48-53 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24, lines 25-26 recite the limitation “the first digital interaction data set and the second digital interaction dataset, wherein digital interaction within the digital interaction database.” The limitation “the first digital interaction data set and the second digital interaction dataset” appears to be randomly stated since there is no action/verb to go with it. As stated below, there is no antecedent basis for “the first digital interaction data set and the second digital interaction dataset.” Therefore, it appears the recitation of “the first digital interaction data set and the second digital interaction dataset” is erroneous.
Claim 24, line 27 recites “wherein digital interaction within the digital interaction ….” The term “each” was deleted between “wherein” and “digital.” It appears a word is now missing between “wherein” and “digital.” It is noted that dependent claim 25 still recites “each digital interaction.”
There are inconsistencies within the following claim limitations:
PNG
media_image1.png
325
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim has not stated that one the phone records have been entered into the digital interaction database, they are considered a digital interaction. The claim then states that identifying matching phone records and then displaying the digital interactions. The limitation appears to be using the terms digital records and digital interactions interchangeably.
Claim 24, lines 28-29 recites “associated with the sender of the digital interaction.” “An identifier” was deleted. It appears that the limitation should recite “a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction.”
Claim 35 recites the limitation
PNG
media_image2.png
108
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The second line recites “phonenumber” instead of “phone number.”
Claim 35 recites the limitation
PNG
media_image3.png
100
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
There is inconsistency with the terminology. This limitation uses “communication provider” whereas the prior limitations have been amended to recite “mobile phone provider.”
Dependent claims 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 34, 36-38, 42, 43 and 48-53 are objected to on the same grounds since the incorporate the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim has been amended to state “mobile phone provider comprises a social media company.” Paragraph [0006] of the published specification states that “the first or second provider comprises a social media company.” Paragraph [0039] of the published specification states
[0039] A digital interaction provider, for example, may include a mobile phone carrier (e.g., Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.), a social media company (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, SnapChat, Instagram, TikTok, etc.), a messaging company (e.g., messenger, WhatsApp, WeChat, iMessage, Messages, etc.), a mobile phone provider (e.g., Android, Apple, etc.), a map company (e.g., Google Maps, Apple Maps, etc.), an advertising id tracking company (e.g., Babel X), etc.
The paragraph recites that the digital interaction provider can be a mobile phone carrier, a social media company, a messaging company, a mobile phone provider …. The paragraph differentiates from a social media company and a mobile phone provider. It does not say that a mobile phone provider comprises a social media company.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites that the digital interaction database comprises a mobile phone provider associated with the sender and a mobile phone provider associated with the receiver. The Examiner fails to find support for this limitation in the specification. The specification discusses a different identifiers associated with the sender and receiver and the Examiner fails to find support for the identifier being a mobile phone provider. The Examiner is treating the claim as if it recites “mobile phone number” since that is the manner in which the other independent claims were amended.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24, 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 34 and 48-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the first interaction data set and the second digital interaction dataset" in lines 25-26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "wherein digital interaction with the digital interaction database" in lines 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has been amended to recite phone records. It is noted that the last line also recites “the digital interactions.” This limitation may also need to be amended based on how the limitation in line 27 is handled.
Dependent claims 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 34 and 48-53 are rejected on the same grounds since they incorporate the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 24-26, 28, 30-32, 34-38, 42, 43, and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 24 recites a computing cloud comprising at least one data storage unit comprising at least one memory device configured to store instructions and at least one computer processing unit configure to execute the instructions, wherein the computing cloud is configured to: provide a web portal for receiving phone records from a user; receive a first phone record via the web portal, the first phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a first mobile phone and a first plurality of digital records of phone interaction between a first person and persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider; store the first phone record in the data storage; receive a second phone record via the web portal, the second phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a second mobile phone and a second plurality of digital records of interaction between a second person and persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider, wherein the data structure of the first phone record is different than the data structure of the second phone record; store the second phone record in the data storage; map the first phone record to a digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation for each field in the first phone record to the digital interaction database; map the second phone record to the digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation from each field in the second phone record to the digital interaction database; the first digital interaction data set and the second digital interaction dataset, wherein digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; store the digital interaction database in the data storage; identify a first person associated with a first digital record in the first phone record that corresponds with a second digital record in the second phone record; and display the digital interactions between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of “map the first phone record to a digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation for each field in the first phone record to the digital interaction database; map the second phone record to the digital interaction database based on a mapping definition that defines the transformation from each field in the second phone record to the digital interaction database; the first digital interaction data set and the second digital interaction dataset, wherein digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; identify a first person associated with a first digital record in the first phone record that corresponds with a second digital record in the second phone record,” as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitations encompass a person mapping records to a table on a piece of paper and then finding all records that match a phone number. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a computing cloud, a data storage unit, a memory device, a computer processing unit, instructions and a web portal. These elements are claimed at a high level of generalization and represent merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of “receive a first phone record,” “store the first phone record in the data storage;” “receive a second phone record,” “store the second phone record in the data storage;” and “store the digital interaction database in the data storage.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining and storing information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations of “the first phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a first mobile phone and a first plurality of digital records of phone interaction between a first person and persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider;” “ the second phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a second mobile phone and a second plurality of digital records of interaction between a second person and persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider, wherein the data structure of the first phone record is different than the data structure of the second phone record;” and “display the digital interactions between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional limitations and elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a computing cloud, a data storage unit, a memory device, a computer processing unit, instructions and a web portal. These elements are claimed at a high level of generalization and represent merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of “receive a first phone record,” “store the first phone record in the data storage;” “receive a second phone record,” “store the second phone record in the data storage;” and “store the digital interaction database in the data storage.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining and storing information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The limitations of “the first phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a first mobile phone and a first plurality of digital records of phone interaction between a first person and persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider;” “ the second phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a second mobile phone and a second plurality of digital records of interaction between a second person and persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider, wherein the data structure of the first phone record is different than the data structure of the second phone record;” and “display the digital interactions between the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 recites a computing cloud comprising at least one data storage unit comprising at least one memory device configured to store instructions and at least one computer processing unit configure to execute the instructions, wherein the computing cloud is configured to: provide a web portal for receiving files from a user; receive a first digital interaction dataset and a second digital interaction dataset via the web portal, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider; select a first digital interaction from the first digital interaction dataset, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of digital interactions between persons recorded by a first mobile phone recorder, wherein the first digital interaction dataset is associated with a first mobile phone provider, wherein each digital interaction within the first digital interaction dataset comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; determine a first phone number from the first digital interaction, the first phone number comprises either phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction or a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; search the second digital interaction dataset for a second digital interaction having a second phone number that matches the first phone number, the second digital interaction dataset is associated with a second communication platform that is different and distinct from the first communication platform; and create a link between the second phone number in the second digital interaction dataset with the first digital interaction in the first digital interaction dataset; and store the link in the data storage unit.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of “select a first digital interaction from the first digital interaction dataset, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of digital interactions between persons recorded by a first mobile phone recorder, wherein the first digital interaction dataset is associated with a first mobile phone provider, wherein each digital interaction within the first digital interaction dataset comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, a phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; determine a first phone number from the first digital interaction, the first phone number comprises either phone number associated with the sender of the digital interaction or a phone number associated with the receiver of the digital interaction; search the second digital interaction dataset for a second digital interaction having a second phone number that matches the first phone number, the second digital interaction dataset is associated with a second communication platform that is different and distinct from the first communication platform; and create a link between the second phone number in the second digital interaction dataset with the first digital interaction in the first digital interaction dataset” as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitations encompass a person reviewing a sets of phone records provided by a phone carrier and selecting a record. The person can then review the selected record to identify phone numbers in the record. Next, the person can then find all records that contain that phone number and create a link between the records. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a computing cloud, a data storage unit, a memory device, a computer processing unit, instructions and a web portal. These elements are claimed at a high level of generalization and represent merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of “receive a first digital interaction dataset and a second digital interaction dataset” and “store the link.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining and storing information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional limitations and elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a computing cloud, a data storage unit, a memory device, a computer processing unit, instructions and a web portal. These elements are claimed at a high level of generalization and represent merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of “receive a first digital interaction dataset and a second digital interaction dataset” and “store the link.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining and storing information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations are directed to necessary data gathering and storing required by the recited abstract idea and are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified as a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The limitation of the first digital interaction dataset comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone, the first digital interaction dataset comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 47 recites receiving a first input phone record, the first phone record comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider; receiving a second phone record, the second phone record comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider; creating a digital interaction database from digital records in both the first phone record and the second phone record, wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, an mobile phone provider associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and an mobile phone provider associated with the receiver of the digital interaction, wherein the digital interaction database includes JSON file that maps data from the first phone record to the digital interaction database; and identifying a first person associated with a first digital record in the first phone record that corresponds with a second digital record in the second phone record.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of “creating a digital interaction database from digital records in both the first phone record and the second phone record, wherein each digital interaction within the digital interaction database comprises at least a date of the digital interaction, a time of the digital interaction, an mobile phone provider associated with the sender of the digital interaction, and an mobile phone provider associated with the receiver of the digital interaction, wherein the digital interaction database that maps data from the first phone record to the digital interaction database; and identifying a first person associated with a first digital record in the first phone record that corresponds with a second digital record in the second phone record” as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). For example, the limitations encompass a person reviewing sets of phone records and then on paper creating a table for each call or message. On the paper that has a table can also have a table mapping fields from the records to the table. The person can then review the table to find all the records relating to a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitations of “receiving a first input phone record” and “receiving a second phone record.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations of the first phone record comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider, the second phone record comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider and JSON file are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional limitations and elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional limitations of “receiving a first input phone record” and “receiving a second phone record.” Each of these limitations are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since they are obtaining information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of obtaining information, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The limitations are directed to necessary data gathering required by the recited abstract idea and are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified as a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). The limitations of the first phone record comprising a first plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider, the second phone record comprising a second plurality of digital records of interaction between persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second mobile phone provider being different and distinct from the first mobile phone provider and JSON file are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations and elements fail to provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Referring to dependent claims 25, 34, 36-38, 42, 51 and 52, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional limitations in each of the claims are also directed to the abstract idea. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and there are no additional elements to provide an inventive concept.
Referring to dependent claim 26, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional element the claim is generally adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations are directed to necessary data gathering required by the recited abstract idea and are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified as a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept.
Referring to dependent claims 28, 30-32, 43, 48-50 and 53 the claims are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional elements in each of the claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept.
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 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.
Claims 24-26, 28, 30, 31, 34 and 48-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No 9,514,205 to Yazicioglu et al (hereafter Yazicioglu) in view of US PGPub 2014/0129420 to Howe in view of US PGPub 2012/0047247 to Piernot (hereafter Piernot).
Referring to claim 24, Yazicioglu discloses a computing cloud comprising at least one data storage unit comprising at least one memory device configured to store instructions and at least one computer processing unit configure to execute the instructions (see Fig 1A and column 4, line 65 – column 5, lines 22), wherein the computing cloud is configured to:
provide a web portal [importer graphical user interface] for receiving phone records [cell phones records] from a user (see column 6, lines 50-62; column 7, lines 32-51);
receive a first phone record via the web portal, the first phone record comprising historical mobile phone records for a first mobile phone and a first plurality of digital records of phone interaction between a first person and persons recorded by a first mobile phone provider [subpoenaed cell phone records] (see column 4, lines 29-38; column 5, lines 45-56; column 6, line 50 – column 7, line 10 – Data importer may be configured to receive data and information through network from various devices and systems. For example, data importer may be configured to receive electronic data files including various types of content from clients and other devices and systems. Some non-limiting examples of electronic data files include … subpoenaed social media records, IP logs from service providers, subpoenaed cell phone records ….);
store the first phone record in the data storage (see column 7, lines 32-51 – Data importer 130 may also include one or more source file databases 212. Source file database 212 may be configured to store source electronic data files received by data importer 130 at communications interface 202.);
receive a second phone record via the web portal, the second phone record comprising historical mobile phone records [for example, subpoenaed cell phone records] for a second mobile phone and a second plurality of digital records of interaction between a second person and persons recorded by a second mobile phone provider, the second communication provider being different and distinct from the first mobile