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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated November 20, 2025. In Response, submitted February 20, 2026, claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 10-17 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Page 10 of the Response, Applicant argues “The Office Action's analysis did not consider and is inconsistent with the viewpoints expressed by the Appeals Review Panel in the precedential decision: Ex Parte Desjardines. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the rejections in view of Ex Parte Desjardines. … First, the Office Action notes on pages 29-30 that the claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art. … For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the Office Action's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner notes, Desjardines does not eliminate the use of proper analysis of claims in the Alice framework, but rather serve to further support and guide existing understanding. It is important keep in mind that “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973” and “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9) (See MPEP 2106.05). While Desjardines points out the usefulness of 102, 103, and 112 in our Patents system, the fact that the tests for eligibility and the tests for novelty and non-obviousness are distinct cannot be overlooked.
On Pages 10-11 of the Response, Applicant argues “the claims recite an improved user interface with enhanced user interactivity through the integration of a periodically updated lookup table that is stored on a first server and initially precomputed on a second server, and that enables linear processing of queries via user input from a user. The improved user interface achieves near-real time rendering because the operation of identifying an alternative event data object from the initial lookup table is processed in linear time complexity with respect to the number of stored event data objects. This improved computational efficiency is enabled by using a periodically updated lookup table that is stored on the first server, initially precomputed by the second server, and later updated on a periodic basis based on new data gathered through queries provided by user input. This linear time complexity ensures that the computational cost of identifying an alternative event data object scales proportionally with the size of the lookup table, thereby avoiding performance degradation as the number of stored objects increases. As a result, the user interface provides enhanced responsiveness and scalability relative to conventional approaches. … As explained further herein with respect to claim 1, the claimed query system is (i) not a mental process or any other abstract idea recognized by the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, § 2106 (9th ed. Rev. June 2022) (hereinafter MPEP) and (ii) provides technical improvements to query techniques for historical claim data. (Id.). Applicant submits that the amended claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner notes, it is unclear how the “integration of a periodically updated lookup table that is stored on a first server and initially precomputed on a second server, and that enables linear processing of queries” represents the improvement to technical aspects of the user interface. As currently recited the “linearly computational complexity” descriptively as part of the abstract “determining an alternative event data object”. While this generally appears to be point towards underlying algorithms, these algorithms are not themselves claimed in anyway. As currently claimed, this aspect is no more than abstract “mathematical concepts” that occur within the context of the “determining an alternative event data object”.
Examiner further notes, the specification provides no detailed explanation as to how the general use of “linear time complexity” constitutes a technical improvement to the first or second server, or any of the other additional elements or associated technologies. The scaling of “computational costs of identifying alternative event data … proportionally with the size of the lookup table” appears to simply disclose that the more data that is input into the system, the higher the computational cost (in time). It is unclear how more data being equated to more computational costs is an improvement to the technology. Traditional linear time complexity is a mathematical concept which searches the data set until it finds a match for what it is looking for at which point it no longer searches. While this is generally quicker and less taxing on resources (such as processing power), these efficiencies are gained because the algorithm only uses data until it finds what its looking for, rather than using data to look at every possible entry. The processing power is improved not by an improvement in the processing technology (such as the processor), but simply because it is no longer used once a solution is found. To put it another way, not using a processor is not an improvement to the processor.
Examiner finally notes, that neither this nor the previously cited non-final rejection have categorized the abstract idea as a “mental process”. And further arguments regarding technical improvements will be evaluated below as they are raised.
On Pages 12-14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claim 1 recites an improved user interface with enhanced user interactivity through the integration of a precomputed and periodically updated lookup table that is stored on a first server, is initially precomputed on a second server, and that enables linear processing of queries via user input from a user. … Here, the elements of independent claim 1 do not fall into any of the groupings or sub- groupings. Further, elements of independent claim 1 do not qualify for the ‘rare circumstances’ exception. … claim 1, as amended, recites presenting and updating a user interface through the integration of a precomputed and periodically updated lookup table that is stored on a first server, is initially precomputed on a second server, and that enables linear processing of queries in response to receiving a target inquiry via user input. These operations relate to user interfaces and query engines, which are not (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions, or (iii) methods of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, fundamental economic practices or principles are typically related to activities such as "hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks." (See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)). None of these are related to query processing or the challenges presented by query processing. As another example, ‘“commercial interactions” or “legal interactions” include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.’ (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)). Again, these examples are not related in any way to query processing or providing and updating a user interface as are the claims. Finally, managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)). None of which relate to query processing or providing and updating a user interface as recited by claim 1. For at least these reasons, the specific query processing technique recited by claim 1 does not recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity.’ Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception under prong one of Step 2A.”
Examiner notes, presenting and updating “through the integration of a precomputed and periodically updated lookup table that is stored …, is initially precomputed…, and that enables linear processing of queries in response to receiving a target inquiry via user input” is a recitation of the abstract idea. The additional elements of user interface, the first server, and the second server amount to merely “apply it”. That is, the user interface is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract ideas of presenting and updating data, and “receiving a target inquiry via user input”; the first server is used as a tool for performing the abstract idea of storing the “precomputed and periodically updated lookup table”; the second server is used as a tool for performing the abstract idea of “initially precompute[ing]” the lookup table. These findings are supported by the generality of disclosure of these elements within the Applicant’s specification where the user interface is disclosed by way of example as “a user application, browser, user interface, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably” (Specification, para. 59), and the servers are disclosed simply as “servers or server networks” (Specification, para. 55).
Examiner further notes, the claims are not sub-categorized into fundamental economic practices or managing personal behaviors or relationships or interactions, therefore these aspects of the argument are moot. However, it is noted that upon a cursory reading presenting and updating “through the integration of a precomputed and periodically updated lookup table that is stored …, is initially precomputed…, and that enables linear processing of queries in response to receiving a target inquiry via user input” may not appear to fall into the sub-category of “commercial interaction” upon closer inspection the this categorization becomes obvious. The data that is being updated, displayed, and stored in the lookup tables is data concerning the commercial interaction of providing pricing for the buying of goods such as purchasing Tylenol, Ibuprofen, or Zocor at CVS or Walgreens, or valuing Zocor at CVS in Cleveland with an HMO (as discussed in Specification, paras. 25 and 27). Therefore, the abstract idea, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, is accurately categorized as a “certain method of organizing human activity”, and sub-categorized as a commercial interaction.
On Pages 14-15 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claim 1, as amended, recites an improved user interface with enhanced user interactivity through the integration of a precomputed and periodically updated lookup table that is stored on a first server, is initially precomputed on a second server, and that enables linear processing of queries via user input from a user. … The improved user interface is able to render the alternative event data object in near-real time with respect to receiving a target inquiry by leveraging an initial precomputed lookup table. As new queries are received via user input, this data is used to periodically update the initial precomputed lookup table. The determination of the alternative event data object from the lookup table is performed in linear time complexity, such that the computational cost scales proportionally with the number of stored objects, thereby enabling efficient and scalable near-real time operations from the user interface even as the volume of stored event data objects increases. Applicant asserts that elements of claim 1, such as the improved user interface that is (i) integrated with a precomputed and periodically updated lookup table that is stored on a first server, (ii) that is initially precomputed on a second server, and that (iii) enables linear processing of queries via user input from a user constitute an improvement in computer functionality such that the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
Examiner notes, “render the alternative event data object in near-real time with respect to receiving a target inquiry by leveraging an initial precomputed lookup table” is not representative of a technical improvement to the user interface itself, rather the system uses the second server to perform the abstract idea of pre-processing data (i.e., precomputing the lookup table) so that the abstract process of processing data is improved once the user is interacting with the system. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology. As such, the additional elements are simply used as tools to carry out these allegedly improved abstract ideas, and are not themselves improved nor do they integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications.
Examiner also notes, the specific alleged improvements found in “(i) integrated with a precomputed and periodically updated lookup table that is stored on a first server, (ii) that is initially precomputed on a second server, and that (iii) enables linear processing of queries via user input from a user” and their lack of improvement to the user interface or computer functionality itself have been discussed at length above.
On Page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claim 1, as amended herein, provides features similar to those emphasized by the Office Action. For example, with respect to (i), claim 1 recites ‘user interface data stored on a first server’ (i.e., the external computing entity 102). With respect to (ii), clam 1 recites ‘the second server’ (predictive analytics system 108) that initially precomputes a lookup table based on historical distribution data. With respect to (iii), claim 1 recites that the second server ‘periodically update[s] the lookup table based on historical distribution data’. As described in the Specification, as cited, the features of claim 1 improve a query system by enabling linear processing of queries via user input. Applicant therefore submits that based on at least Example 42 provided by the USPTO, claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because independent claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A.”
Examiner notes, it is not merely the fact that Example 42 Claim 1 (hereafter Example 42) receives data in a non-standard format, converts it to a standard format, and updates the data stored in storage devices that brings the claims to eligibility, this is merely data processing on its face. Instead, what brings the claims to eligibility is the technical problem found in how the current digital records platforms operate (namely, (i) patient records are stored locally, (ii) each office uses it’s own program with its own data format so that even if the records were stored centrally other offices would still not be able to view the patient records because they are stored in an incompatible format) and the technical solution detailed in the specification and reflected in the claims (namely, the invention is able to read the data formats of each office’s software platform, the invention then (i) converts the individual data formats into the standardized format of the invention, so that if a user is using the invention they are able to see the patient information generated by any office regardless of the platform their office uses, which was impossible for computers to do prior to the invention due to the incompatibility of the various data formats; the invention then (ii) stores and updates these standardized format files in one or more network-based storage devices (i.e. centralized storage) as each office adds data do the patient file on their respective systems, which allows up-to-date data to be accessed which was impossible with the data being “stored locally on a computer”. Simply having similar architecture without the accompanying technical problems and solutions do not make the claims analogous to Example 42. As discussed above, the alleged improvements to “a query system” are gained in allegedly improving abstract processes such as pre-processing data, not through any actual improvement to the technology itself.
On Pages 16-17 of the Response, Applicant argues “Like Enfish, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and the claims provide an improvement (e.g., enhanced speed) to query techniques (e.g., a computer functionality) for historical claim data. In a further example, the claims present specific computer-based steps for filtering, matching, and selecting data using a structured lookup table that are similar to McRO ‘holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process).’ (Id.; see also McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C.§ 101 because the features of claim 1, namely the (i) precomputed and periodically updated lookup table that is stored on a first server, (ii) that is initially precomputed on a second server, and that (iii) enables linear processing of queries via user input from a user constitute an improvement in computer functionality, provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. … For at least the same reasons as set forth above, Applicant submits that the independent claims 8 and 15 recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and requests withdrawal of the rejection to claims 8 and 15 (and the claims that depend therefrom) as well as allowance in due course.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above, the alleged “enhanced speed” and improvement to “a computer functionality” are gained through improvements to the abstract idea carried out by the additional elements not the additional elements or their technologies themselves. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology. Contrary to Enfish and McRO where the use of a recited abstract idea in the context of the invention resulted in the specific detailed improvement of the computer/technology (that is more than just the abstract idea was improved), additional elements of the claims function without change from their generic off-the-shelf counterparts merely as tools to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”). This analysis holds true when viewed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination. These specific responses concerning representative claim 1, hold true for Independent claims 8 and 15 as well.
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 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 and 7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 8-11 and 14 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine); claims 15-18 and 20 are directed to a computer program on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites presenting, based on user interface data, to a user;
receiving, at a first time, a target inquiry initiated by a user input from the user and identifying a target event comprising a plurality of target event features and a target event measure;
receiving updated user interface data based on the target inquiry; and
based on the updated user interface data, updating to display an alternative event data object, wherein:
(i) the alternative event data object is rendered in near-real time with respect to receiving the target inquiry by:
(a) accessing a periodically updated lookup table which is (1) initially precomputed, (2) stored, and (3) comprises a plurality of alternative event data objects, and
(b) determining an alternative event data object of the plurality of alternative event data objects stored in the periodically updated lookup table, the determination of the alternative event data object being performed with linear computational complexity, based at least in part on (1) a similarity comparison between a first combination of the plurality of target event features and a second combination of granularity-adjusted event features for the alternative event data object and (2) a similarity threshold,
(ii) the periodically updated lookup table is updated, on a periodic basis, by:
(a) receiving, at a second time prior to the first time, historical event data for a historical time period from the second time that comprises a historical distribution associated with the alternative event data object, and
(b) generating, based at least in part on the historical distribution, a table entry for the alternative event data object within the periodically updated lookup table, wherein the table entry comprises (1) the second combination for the alternative event data object and (2) a segment valuation distribution for the second combination, wherein the table entry is generated in response to a determination that an occurrence count of the second combination within the historical distribution satisfies an occurrence count threshold.
Independent claims 8 and 15 substantially recite presenting, based on user interface data, to a user;
receiving, at a first time, a target inquiry initiated by a user input from the user and identifying a target event comprising a plurality of target event features and a target event measure;
receiving updated user interface data based on the target inquiry; and
based on the updated user interface data, updating to display an alternative event data object based on the target inquiry, wherein:
(i) the alternative event data object is rendered in near-real time with respect to receiving the target inquiry by:
(a) accessing a periodically updated lookup table which is (1) initially precomputed, (2) stored, and (3) comprises a plurality of alternative event data objects, and
(b) determining an alternative event data object of the plurality of alternative event data objects stored in the periodically updated lookup table, the determination of the alternative event data object being performed with linear computational complexity, based at least in part on (1) a similarity comparison between a first combination of the plurality of target event features and a second combination of granularity-adjusted event features for the alternative event data object and (2) a similarity threshold,
(ii) the periodically updated lookup table is updated, on a periodic basis, by:
(a) receiving at a second time prior to the first time, historical event data for a historical time period from the second time that comprises a historical distribution associated with the alternative event data object, and
(b) generating, based at least in part on the historical distribution, a table entry for the alternative event data object within the periodically updated lookup table, wherein the table entry comprises (1) the second combination for the alternative event data object and (2) a segment valuation distribution for the second combination, wherein the table entry is generated in response to a determination that an occurrence count of the second combination within the historical distribution satisfies an occurrence count threshold.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of “performing predictive target event evaluation”. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). Claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the additional element of: (i) one or more processors (claims 1, 8, 15), (ii) at least one memory (claim 8), (iii) a client device (claims 1, 8, 15), (iv) a user interface (claims 1, 8, 15), (v) a first server (claims 1, 8, 15), and (vi) a second server (claims 1, 8, 15).
The additional elements of i) one or more processors, (ii) at least one memory, (iii) a client device, (iv) a user interface, (v) a first server, and (vi) a second server are recited at a high level of generality (see [0047] of the Applicants specification discussing the one or more processors, [0037] discussing the at least one memory, [0059] discussing the client device, [0059] discussing the user interface, and [0055] discussing the first server and second server) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 2 showing the additional element (i) one or more processors and (ii) at least one memory, (iii) a client device, (iv) a user interface, (v) a first server, and (vi) a second server in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 are also ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 11,501,359 to Lorenz et al (hereafter Lorenz). Lorenz discloses methods and systems for inquiries identifying target events and features, determining alternative events and data.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0130505 to Molitor et al (hereafter Molitor). Molitor discloses generating table entries in a lookup table/database based on historical data.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0100863 to Mantz et al (hereafter Mantz). Mantz discloses determining segment valuation distribution data for related event feature combinations including the highest-granularity event feature combination.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 10,402,839 to Frazee et al (hereafter Frazee). Frazee discloses determining alternative event features and objects based on comparing similarity scores.
The next closest prior art is Non-Patent Literature “Real-Time Bidding Algorithms for Performance-Based Display Ad Allocation” by Chen et al (hereafter Chen). Chen discloses linear computational complexity in connection with determination of alternate event data.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 2016/0004775 to Aleskerov et al (hereafter Aleskerov). Aleskerov discloses evaluating and making determinations regarding possible options using linear computational complexity using thresholds to eliminate options.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Lorenz in view of Molitor and further in view of Mantz and even further in view Frazee and even further in view of Chen and even further in view of Aleskerov fails to teach determining an alternative event data object from a lookup table with linear computation complexity based at least in part a similarity comparison between a first combination of the plurality of target event features and a second combination of granularity-adjusted event features for the alternative event data object and a similarity threshold. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628