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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 2 April 2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are amended.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16-17, and 19-21 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 2 April 2026:
a. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 9-14 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One; does recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two; and/or does recite significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. With regards to the analysis under Step 2A, Prong One; Applicant points to the following limitations as not being practically performable in the human mind: generating of a database query, conducting of the database query to obtain transaction data, detecting an occurrence of an event, and generating a filter. Applicant is advised that claims in a pending application must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP § 2111. Furthermore, with regards to subject matter eligibility analysis, “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions.” MPEP 2106(II). Applicant has failed to construe the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, and for such a simple case, a human could mentally perform generation of a query, detection of an occurrence of an event, and generation of a filter, as claimed. Hence, these limitations are abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Also as detailed below, the claimed conducting of the database query amounts to mere data gathering that is insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter. Hence, the claimed conducting of the database query cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. “Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible,” MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
With regards to the analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two; Applicant asserts that the practical application is “filtering active transaction data upon detecting of an event to generate a statistic that measures large-scale activity using active transaction data” (remarks, page 11). Applicant asserts “specific improvements to the technical field of generating statistics” for “large-scale transaction data” and “large-scale activity” (remarks, page 12, emphasis is Applicant’s). Applicant asserts that the generating and conducting of a database query to obtain transaction data, “detecting an occurrence of an event,” and generating and applying a filter limitations provide the practical application. Firstly, the claims do not recite any “large-scale transaction data” nor any “large-scale activity.” Applicant has improperly imported “large-scale” into the claims. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims encompasses a simple case of a small dataset having just a few data records/entries. Hence, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not directed to the BRI of the claims. Secondly, as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the generating and conducting the database query limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity and cannot be deemed a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thirdly, also as detailed below, the “detecting an occurrence of an event,” and generating and applying a filter limitations are mentally performable abstract idea limitations. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements…In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.” MPEP 2106.05(a), (emphasis added). Hence, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because Applicant has asserted the abstract idea itself (i.e. the claimed “detecting an occurrence of an event,” and generating and applying a filter limitations) as a practical application. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regards to the analysis under Step 2B, Applicant asserts that the claimed detecting an occurrence of an event and generating a filter are additional elements beyond the abstract (remarks, page 14, first paragraph) and then Applicant concludes that claim 1 “recites additional elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field” (remarks, page 14, second-to-last paragraph). To the contrary, the claimed detecting an occurrence of an event and generating a filter are not additional elements. Rather, these limitations are mentally performable abstract idea limitations, as set forth above and as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Hence, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because Applicant has asserted abstract idea limitations (i.e. detecting an occurrence of an event and generating a filter) as providing the inventive concept. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP 2106.05(a). Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to those of claim 1 and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claim 1 is ineligible, as set forth above.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 11-14, 16-17, and 20-21 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1, 10, and 19 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
On pages 14-15 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant discusses claim 21, stating “Claim 21 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, because claim 1 recites features that do not fall into one of the enumerated groupings set forth in the 2019 PEG; and/or, because the features are integrated into a practical application; and/or, alternatively because claim 21 recites additional elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Claim 21 recites further details of applying the filter to the first set of active merchants. As detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple dataset having just a few merchants who perform just a few transactions over period of time. For such a simple case, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally apply a filter in the manner claimed. Hence, the claimed “applying the filter” is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Claim 21 recites no additional elements beyond this abstract idea limitation. Hence, claim 21 cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept.
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 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 10, and 19, these claims recite identifying a first set of active merchants that performed at least a threshold number of transactions during a first period of time based on transaction data, the first set of active merchants being in a group of merchants. This limitation is not restricted to any specific number of transactions or number of merchants, other than using the plural form which would encompass at least two, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Furthermore, this limitation is directed to “identifying,” which is essentially an evaluation or judgement of whether or not each of the merchants has performed a threshold number of transactions. This is a mental process that could be performed in the human mind. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human could mentally identify a couple of merchants that have performed a couple of transactions during a period of time. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite generating a database query. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally generate a database query, as claimed. The claimed generation of a database query amounts to no more than an evaluation or judgment, i.e. evaluating/judging the appropriate query for obtaining the necessary transaction data. A human can mentally generate such a query with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite detecting an occurrence of an event based on data. The claims do not specify the amount of data, and under the BRI these claims encompass a simple amount of data. The act of detecting an occurrence of an event based on data amounts to no more than a judgement or evaluation, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite upon detecting of the occurrence of the event, generating a filter to be applied to the first set of active merchants. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally generate a filter, as claimed. The claimed generation of a filter amounts to no more than an evaluation or judgment, i.e. evaluating/judging the set of active merchants to identify an appropriate filter for this dataset. A human can mentally generate such a filter with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite applying the filter to the first set of active merchants based on a time associated with the event and a geographic location associated with the event. For the simple number of merchants encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could perform the claimed filtering with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite the following:
generating a first set of weights for the first set of active merchants based on a first distribution of activity across the first set of active merchants, wherein the first distribution of activity includes a first percentage of transactions from a first industry of a plurality of industries that at least one active merchant of the first set of active merchants belongs to and a second percentage of transactions from a second industry of the plurality of industries that at least one active merchant of the first set of active merchants belongs to.
This too, when considering the BRI, recites a mental process practically performed in the human mind. For example, one can mentally evaluate or judge that Merchant A is in industry X, which has 10% of all transactions; whereas Merchant B is in industry Y, which has 30% of all transactions. A person could mentally generate (i.e. judge or evaluate) that these merchants should each get weights corresponding to these percentages. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping, since the claimed “weights” are just numbers and generating the weights, as claimed, amounts to no more than mathematical calculation(s) to arrive at the set of weights (i.e. the set of numbers).
These claims also recite the following:
normalizing the transaction data identifying transactions performed by the first set of active merchants during the first period of time based on the first set of weights, yielding normalized transaction data.
This limitation is also mentally performable as evaluations or judgements. The BRI of the claimed “transaction data” encompasses a simple dataset composed of just a few data points. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human could mentally normalize such a simple dataset. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping, since it amounts to no more than mathematical calculation(s). In the field of data science and statistics, “normalization” is a scaling technique in which data points are shifted and rescaled so that they end up in a range of 0 to 1, e.g. using a mathematical formula such as the following:
Xnew = (X — Xmin) / (Xmax — Xmin)1. Hence, the claimed normalizing transaction data falls into the mathematical concept/calculation grouping as well.
These claims also recite generating a statistic based on the normalized transaction data, the statistic indicating a fluctuation in the time-dependent attribute. The plain meaning of a ‘statistic’ is a calculated numerical value that characterizes a data set2. Furthermore, “statistics” is “a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data3.” Hence, the claimed generating a statistic is directly akin to stating “calculating a statistic” based on the data set, and this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept as a mathematical relationship or calculation. In addition, assuming arguendo that that the claimed generating a statistic does not fall into the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas, this limitation still recites a mental process as well. There are no details in the claim as to what statistic is generated or how such is to be done. The BRI of the limitation encompasses any statistic which would encompass a mentally performable evaluation or judgment from the normalized data. For instance, one can mentally evaluate or judge that the data set has changed from known previous data, and this is nothing more than a mental comparison of two pieces of data and judgement that, for instance, transaction activity has increased in the current dataset from the previous dataset. Thus, the generating a statistic limitation also recites a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. In conclusion, the aforementioned limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed entirely to abstract ideas as mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Other than the abstract idea limitations, the claims recite the following:
a) “a database query to be transmitted to one or more data servers” and “conducting, by the one or more processors, the database query on the one or more data servers to obtain the transaction data, the transaction data including a plurality of transactions performed by the group of merchants, the transaction data including a time-dependent attribute associated with the plurality of transactions for the group of merchants;” and “data received from one of the one or more third-party servers;”
b) generating an interface that depicts the statistic; and causing display of the interface on a client device;
c) one or more computer processors; and
d) a computer-readable medium storing instructions.
Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity that cannot provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the claimed “one or more data servers” is a generic computer component performing generic computing functions, which cannot provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitation (b) amounts to no more than providing a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the claimed “interface” and “client device” are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components performing generic computer functions, which cannot provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitations (c) and (d) are also recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as generic computer components performing generic computing functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the 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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity. In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the claimed “one or more data servers” is a generic computer component performing generic computing functions. Hence, limitation (a) cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitation (b) above amounts to no more than providing a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification provides few details about the claimed generating an interface or displaying the interface (see para. 0037 and 0040 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that this feature is well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that additional element (b) is conventional and performs well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A)4. Hence, limitation (b) cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (c) and (d) amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 11-14, 16-17, and 20-21, these claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These dependent claims merely provide more details of the claimed identifying a set of active merchants, generating a set of weights, and/or applying the filter. These limitations are abstract ideas as either mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, as set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple number of merchants and a simple amount of data, as set forth above in the parent claims, nothing in these dependent claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, the limitations of these claims remain directed to an abstract under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Furthermore, the claims that provide more details of “generating the first set of weights” (i.e. claims 3, 4, 12, and 13) may alternatively be deemed abstract ideas under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping since generating the set of weights amounts to no more than mathematical calculation(s) and/or operation(s). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Alam, Rizwan. "Normalization vs Standardization Explained." Towards Data Science. Published 5 May 2020. Accessed 6 April 2023 from https://towardsdatascience.com/normalization-vs-standardization-explained-209e84d0f81e
2 See, for example, https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=statistic;
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Statistic.html; and https://www.wordnik.com/words/statistic
3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statistics
4 This section of the MPEP explains that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (emphasis added).
Prosecution Insights